Now after her deposition Aaron should interview Fiona Hill. I would like to see how she would lose all the feathers of her cocky
"I am Specialist in Russia" stance. She a regular MIC prostitute (intelligence agencies are a part of MIC) just like Luke Harding. And
probably both have the same handlers.
Brilliant interview !
Harding is little more than an intelligence asset himself and his idea of speaking to "Russians" is London circle of Russian emigrants
which are not objective source by any means.
He's peddling a his Russophobic line with no substantiation. In fact, the interview constitutes an overdue exposure of this pressitute.
Notable quotes:
"... He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. ..."
"... This interview is a wonderful illustration of everything that is horribly wrong with corporate media. I hope it goes viral. ..."
"... Very well put! Everything that is labeled as "conspiracy theory" when aimed towards the West, is "respectable journalism" when aimed at Russia. ..."
"... Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman "all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil. ..."
"... Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises '' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling the postal service company for transportation costs. ..."
"... Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate to The Real News. ..."
"... GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC server was hacked. ..."
"... Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking. ..."
"... NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election. Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller? LIAR!!!! ..."
"... Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here. ..."
"... His logic seems to be: Putin does things we don't like -> Trump getting elected is something we don't like -> Putin got Trump elected. ..."
That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence
(something like Russia's Richard Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch
of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. That's not how you're going to
get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on
"oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season.
Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really,
its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations
of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding
for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be involved in murdering
journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course
if someone here discusses he death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian were
to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
That is the video about fire arm legalization "cockroaches ", even if you are not Russian speaking it's pretty graphic to understand
the idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ILxqIEEMg
And FYI - Central Asian workers do the low-wage jobs in Moscow, pretty like Mexicans or Puerto Ricans in US. Yet, that "future
president" is trying to gain some popularity by labeling and demonizing them. Sounds familiar a bit?
"definitelly ddissagree with that assertation about Alexei he's had nationalist views but he's definitely not far right and
calling him a tool of US intelligence is pretty bs this is the exact same assertation that the Russian state media says about
him."
I disagree that there is any evidence of Navalny being tool of US intelligence, but you are wrong for not recognizing
that Navalny is ultranationalist. His public statements are indefensible. He is a Russian ultra nationalist, far right and a racist.
Statements about cockroaches, worse than rats, bullets being too good etc - there is no way to misunderstand that.
Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman
"all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always
cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil.
Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises
'' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling
the postal service company for transportation costs.
@trdi I am a Russian. And I remember the early Navalny who made me sick to my stomach with absolutely disgusting, RACIST, anti-immigration
commentaries. The guy is basically a NEO-NAZI who has toned down his nationalist diatribes in the past 10 or so years. Has he
really reformed? I doubt it.
MrChibiluffy, Navalny became relatively popular in Russia precisely at that time, especially during the White Ribbon protests
in 2011/2012. I remember it very well myself.
I am Russian and I lived in Moscow at that time and he was the darling of the Russian opposition. He publicly defined his views
and established himself back then and hasn't altered his position to this day.
What's more important is that around 2015 or so he made an alliance with the far-right and specifically Diomushkin who is a
neo-nazi activist. I understand that people change their views, it's just that he hasn't.
Nikita Gusarov it still feels like the best chance for some form of populist opposition atm. Even though they just rejected
him he has a movement. Would you rather vote for Sobchak?
Lets not forget that one reason many voted for Trump was his rhetoric about improving the peace-threatening antagonism towards
Russia, especially in order to help resolve the situation in Syria. It's not like it was secret he was trying to hide. He only
moderated his views somewhat when the Democrat-engineered anti-Russian smear campaign took off and there was a concerted effort
to tie him to Russia.
Is it crime surround yourself with people that will help you fullfill your pledges?
Yep, when he talked about murdering journalists, I paused the video and told my girlfriend about the murder of Michael Hastings.
Oh an PS the USA puts journalists in Guantanamo. We play real baseball.
Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths
or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate
to The Real News.
GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other
issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC
server was hacked.
Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know
if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever
you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase
that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking.
NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would
not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election.
Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller?
LIAR!!!!
Wow Aaron Matte NICE JOB. I'm only half through, I hope you don't make him cry. Do u make him cry? Did I hear this guy say
he's ultimately a storyteller? Lol.
It may seem like Trump has an alarming amount of associations with Russia, because he does.. that's how rich oligarchs work.
But it's all just SPECULATION still. Why publish a book on this without a smoking gun to prove anything? Collusion isn't even
a legal term, it's vague enough for people to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. People investigating and reporting on
this are operating under confirmation bias. Aaron, you're always appropriately critical and you're always asking the right questions.
You seem to be one of the few sane people left in media. Trump is a disgrace but there still is no smoking gun.
Omg a bunch of unproven conspiracy crap.. Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here..
How would anyone in the years before his candidacy have thought Trump would gain any political relevance. I mean even the pro
Hillary media thought until the end, their massive trump coverage would only help to get him NOT elected, but the opposite was
the case. This guy is a complete joke as are his theses. Actually reminding me of the guardian's so called report about Russian
Hacking in the Brexit referendum. Look here if you want to have a laugh
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/12/how-097-changed-the-fate-of-britain-not.html
Collusion Rejectionist! Ha Ha. Funniest interview ever. Well done Aaron. The Real News taking a stand for truth. So what's
in the book if there's no evidence? Guardian journalism? Stop questioning the official narrative, oh and have you heard of Estonia.
:)) ps that smiley face was not an admission of my working for the Kremlin.
Best interview ever. Aaron held him to his theories and asked what evidence or proof he had and he didn't come up with one
spec of evidence only hearsay and disputed theories. What a sad indictment this is on America. 1 year on a sensationalized story
and still nothing concrete. What a joke and proof of gullibility to anyone who believes this corporate media Narritive. I guess
at least they don't have to cover policies like the tax theft or net neutrality. This is why we need The Real news.
I'd rather have American business making business deals with Russia for things like hotels, rather than business deals with
the Pentagon to aim more weapons at the Russians. When haven't we been doing business with Russians? We might as well investigate
Cargill, Pepsi, McDonald's, John Deere, Ford, and most of our wheat farmers.
Brennan role in weaponizing dossier now became more clear.
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, Fusion GPS hiring of Nellie Ohr -- the wife of senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr -- also shows that Steele's role in producing the dossier may be exaggerated. Ohr is a Stanford Ph.D. whose expertise is Russia and she appears to be fluent in Russian. She may have conducted interviews or written parts of the dossier. ..."
"... The dossier, however, only has Steele's name on it -- helping to credential the research as an "intelligence product." ..."
"... A Democratic consultant and Ukrainian-American activist named Alexandra Chalupa, told the Clinton campaign about Manafort's work for Yanukovich. "I flagged for the DNC the significance of his hire," Chalupa told CNN in July of this year. ..."
"... Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS in April, shortly after Trump hired Manafort. Manafort's role now allowed Simpson to highlight corruption that he already knew to exist, from his reporting. A line from the dossier states: ..."
"... Steele -- it notes -- had not lived or worked in Russia for nearly 25 years, but his name "at a minimum" would be useful in marketing whatever his firm pulled together. Plus, Steele had a good relationship with the FBI and could "spill secrets" to journalists. ..."
"... it is likely that Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook cited Fusion GPS's work in a July 22 interview after embarrassing leaks of Democratic National Committee emails. He told ABC News's George Stephanopoulos that "some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." ..."
"... The FBI did launch an investigation into possible collusion, however, known by "only a dozen or so people at the FBI," including then-director James Comey and Peter Strzok, who was chosen to supervise the investigation. ..."
"... She said by August 2016, the CIA had "verified the key finding of the dossier" to the point that it was having "eyes only" top secret meetings with President Obama about it. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan had also briefed top lawmakers on Russian efforts to help Trump last summer and had said the CIA had limited legal ability to investigate Russian connections to Trump, prompting Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to write a public letter to the FBI -- which collects domestic intelligence -- about the threat of Russian interference. ..."
"... It appears that Brennan was briefing Reid on the Steele dossier. ..."
"... Brennan apparently sent the dossier to the White House, prompting the "eyes only" meetings. ..."
"... The Post also writes that the "material was so sensitive that CIA Director John O. Brennan kept it out of the president's daily brief, concerned that even that restricted report's distribution was too broad." ..."
"... But as Tablet asks, "if the material was so sensitive that it had to be kept out of the PDB and withheld from the Senate majority leader, why was someone telling The Washington Post about it?" ..."
Did the Obama administration launch an investigation into the Trump campaign based solely off of unverified political opposition
research? And was that "research" dressed up and given more credibility than it should have? It appears that way
based on an
investigation of open-source information by Tablet.
The outlet's investigation begins with a June 24, 2017, Facebook post by Mary Jacoby, the wife of Glenn Simpson, the former
Wall Street Journal reporter who started Fusion GPS, the firm behind the dossier.
Jacoby, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who once shared bylines with Simpson, bragged how her husband was not getting
the credit he deserved for the dossier.
"It's come to my attention that some people still don't realize what Glenn's role was in exposing Putin's control of Donald Trump,"
she wrote on Facebook. "Let's be clear. Glenn conducted the investigation. Glenn hired Chris Steele. Chris Steele worked for Glenn."
Until this day, the dossier is often referred to as the "Steele dossier," named after the former British spy Christopher Steele
who is believed to have authored the document.
Steele's background has been used by collusion-believers to argue that the document is credible. But Jacoby's post suggests that
Steele might not have played as big of a role in the dossier as he is given credit.
Indeed, Fusion GPS hiring of Nellie Ohr -- the wife of senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr -- also shows that Steele's
role in producing the dossier may be exaggerated. Ohr is a Stanford Ph.D. whose expertise is Russia and she appears to be fluent
in Russian. She may have conducted interviews or written parts of the dossier.
The dossier, however, only has Steele's name on it -- helping to credential the research as an "intelligence product."
Tablet also took a look at Simpson and Jacoby's work for the WSJ . In April 2007 -- in the lead-up to the 2008 election
-- they co-wrote a story about Republican links to Russians.
In that story, titled "How Lobbyists Help Ex-Soviets Woo Washington," they detail how prominent Republicans helped open doors
for "Kremlin-affiliated oligarchs and other friends of Vladimir Putin."
They reported on Viktor Yanukovich, who had paid political fixer Paul Manafort to introduce Yanukovich to powerful Washington,
DC, figures. They later reported on May 14, 2008, that Manafort's lobbying firm was escorting Yanukovich around Washington. Yanukovich
would later become president of Ukraine in 2010.
Tablet explains how their reporting may have been the origins of the Trump dossier:
So when the Trump campaign named Paul Manafort as its campaign convention manager on March 28, 2016, you can bet that Simpson
and Jacoby's eyes lit up. And as it happened, at the exact same time that Trump hired Manafort, Fusion GPS was in negotiations
with Perkins Coie, the law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, to see if there was interest in the firm continuing
the opposition research on the Trump campaign they had started for the Washington Free Beacon. In addition to whatever sales pitch
Simpson might have offered about Manafort, the Clinton campaign had independent reason to believe that research into Manafort's
connections might pay some real political dividends: A Democratic consultant and Ukrainian-American activist named Alexandra
Chalupa, told the Clinton campaign about Manafort's work for Yanukovich. "I flagged for the DNC the significance of his hire,"
Chalupa told CNN in July of this year.
Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS in April, shortly after Trump hired Manafort. Manafort's role now allowed Simpson to highlight
corruption that he already knew to exist, from his reporting. A line from the dossier states:
Ex-Ukrainian President YANUKOVYCH confides directly to PUTIN that he authorised (sic) kick-back payments to MANAFORT, as alleged
in western media Assures Russian President however there is no documentary evidence/trail.
Tablet notes that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would later find corruption by Manafort related to money laundering (before he
joined the Trump campaign). It also points out that Tony Podesta -- Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta's brother -- worked
for Manafort at the time he represented Yanukovich. (The Podesta Group disbanded this year after those connections were made public,
and the special counsel is reportedly investigating Podesta too.)
Tablet notes that while Simpson had begun working on the dossier on Trump collusion with Russia, he was also working for a Russian
lawyer to undermine an American law called the Magnitsky Act and that Steele may have been hired to disguise that contradiction.
Steele -- it notes -- had not lived or worked in Russia for nearly 25 years, but his name "at a minimum" would be useful in
marketing whatever his firm pulled together. Plus, Steele had a good relationship with the FBI and could "spill secrets" to journalists.
Ohr -- Simpson's next hire -- also hadn't lived in Russia for decades and was "not a spy, or even a journalist." "In this world,
she was definitely an amateur," Tablet writes.
"Presumably, as a result of all the above, much of the reporting in the dossier is recognizably the kind of patter that locals
in closed or semi-closed societies engage in to impress expats -- the kind of thing you hear in a bar, or on the cab ride from the
airport to the hotel," it says.
Tablet then goes into the bad shape of U.S. intelligence on Russia -- likely making officials less skeptical of the dossier even
though, to date, they have not been able to confirm any of its allegations on collusion.
And Tablet notes that it is likely that Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook cited Fusion GPS's work in a July 22 interview
after embarrassing leaks of Democratic National Committee emails. He told ABC News's George Stephanopoulos that "some experts are
now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
At that point, a tech firm had attributed the leaks to Russia but was not able to explain why. The FBI was looking at the leak
but had not yet publicly determined political motivation.
"But the DNC and Clinton campaign did have an oppo-research firm under contract that was in the middle of putting together a file
that would claim that the Russians were trying to get Trump elected," Tablet notes.
The FBI did launch an investigation into possible collusion, however, known by "only a dozen or so people at the FBI," including
then-director James Comey and Peter Strzok, who was chosen to supervise the investigation.
But by late October, they had not yet found any evidence that showed Russia was working to elect Trump. So, ten days before the
election, angry Clinton supporters and unnamed intelligence officials
spoke to
the New York Times in an October 31, 2016, story about what the investigation had found so far.
Jacoby would post that story in her June 24 Facebook post, slamming the FBI and accusing it of "ineptitude," while the CIA "hopped
to and immediately worked to verify" the dossier.
She said by August 2016, the CIA had "verified the key finding of the dossier" to the point that it was having "eyes only"
top secret meetings with President Obama about it.
Thus, while the document could not be verified and was not used in any intelligence assessment because of its inability to be
verified, it was now the topic of meetings with the president.
CIA Director John Brennan had also briefed top lawmakers on Russian efforts to help Trump last summer and had said the CIA
had limited legal ability to investigate Russian connections to Trump, prompting Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to write a public letter
to the FBI -- which collects domestic intelligence -- about the threat of Russian interference.
Reid then wrote another letter to Comey after he reopened the investigation into Clinton's emails -- accusing him of letting Trump
slide.
"It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his
top advisers, and the Russian government -- a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every
opportunity," he wrote.
"I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public and yet, you continue to resist calls
to inform the public of this critical information."
That "information" Reid was referring to was the dossier, according to Tablet:
According to David Corn's Oct. 31, 2016, article in Mother Jones , the Nevada lawmaker was referencing the findings
of "a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence."
Corn now explains that the "former Western intelligence officer -- who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters
and who now works with a U.S. firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients" is Christopher Steele. According
to Corn, Steele said that "in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources,
contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump."
It appears that Brennan was briefing Reid on the Steele dossier.
Brennan apparently sent the dossier to the White House, prompting the "eyes only" meetings.
"An envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried 'eyes
only' instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides," the
Washington
Post
reported on June 23, 2017.
"So was the Steele dossier in the envelope?" Tablet asks.
The Post writes that inside that envelope "was an intelligence bombshell" -- a report drawn from sourcing deep inside
the Russian government that detained Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the presidential race,
defeat or at least damage Hillary Clinton, and help elect Donald Trump.
The Post also writes that the "material was so sensitive that CIA Director John O. Brennan kept it out of the president's
daily brief, concerned that even that restricted report's distribution was too broad."
But as Tablet asks, "if the material was so sensitive that it had to be kept out of the PDB and withheld from the Senate majority
leader, why was someone telling The Washington Post about it?"
Tablet writes:
Sources and methods are the crown jewels of the American intelligence community. And yet someone has just told a major American
newspaper about a "report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that captured Putin's specific instructions."
If the CIA had a human intelligence source that close to Putin, publication of the Post article could have exposed that
source -- doing incalculable damage to American national security. He and many of his loved ones would then have presumably died
horrible deaths.
Or, as Mary Jacoby surmised, it was her husband's handiwork that landed on the president's desk.
The article is two years old now. Looks like Paul Craig Roberts was right. A very strange thing is that Trump proved to be
very good for weapon industry and not so bad for neocons. Still the coup is continuing.
Notable quotes:
"... There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump. ..."
"... The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress. ..."
"... The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business, which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue. ..."
"... The institutional Trump enemies are: ..."
"... The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere. ..."
"... The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists' benefit. ..."
"... The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary power in the world is anathema to their believes. ..."
"... The CIA-controlled European media, the politicians in Washington's European vassal states, NATO officials, and the brainwashed European peoples will support the coup against Trump. ..."
"... PCR has gone senile. Trump IS the elite ..."
"... And Trump will continue the MidEast wars. He made it clear. ..."
"... The CIA, along with Boeing and all the other contractors, banks, insurers, and rabble of the Wall Street machine are the Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... Andrea Chalupa @AndreaChalupa Dec 11 ..."
"... 1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan. 6 in Congress ..."
"... 2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member & 1 Senator ..."
"... 3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law. ..."
The below theses are thus far only a general outlay...
There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump.
The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress.
The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The
case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency
to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business,
which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue.
Should the coup succeed violent insurrections in the United States are likely to ensue with unpredictable consequences.
No general plan has been published. The scheme though is pretty obvious by now. However, the following contains some speculation.
The priority aim is to deny Trump the presidency. He is too independent and a danger for several power centers within the ruling
U.S. power circles. The selection of Tillerson as new Secretary of State only reinforces this (Prediction: Bolton will not get
the Deputy position.) Tillerson is for profitable stability, not for regime change adventures.
The institutional Trump enemies are:
The CIA which has become the Central Assassination Agency under the Bush and Obama administrations. Huge parts
of its budgets depend on a continuation of the war on Syria and the drone assassination campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan
and elsewhere. Trump's more isolationist policies would likely end these campaigns and the related budget troughs.
The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President
Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists'
benefit.
The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary
power in the world is anathema to their believes.
The article is a documented and accurate description of a coup that is underway. The extraordinary lies that are being perpetrated
by the media and by members of the US government have as their obvious purpose the prevention of a Donald Trump presidency. There
is no other reason for the extraordinary blatant lies for which there is not a shred of evidence. Indeed, there is massive real evidence
to the contrary. Yet the coup proceeds and gathers steam.
President Eisenhower warned us more than a half century ago of the danger that the military/security complex presents to US democracy.
In the decades since Eisenhower's warning, the military/security complex has become more powerful than the American people and is
demonstrating its power by overturning a presidential election.
Will the coup succeed?
In my opinion, former and present members of the US government and the media would not dare to so obviously and openly participate
in a coup against democracy and an elected president unless they expect the coup to succeed.
It is an easy matter for the ruling interests to bribe electors to vote differently than their states. The cost of the bribes
is miniscule compared to the wealth and income streams that a trillion dollar annual budget provides to the military/security complex.
The fake news of a Putin/Trump election-stealing plot generated by unsupported allegations of present and former members of US intelligence,
the lame-duck President Obama, and the presstitute media provide the cover for electors to break with precedent "in order to save
America from a Russian stooge."
The CIA-controlled European media, the politicians in Washington's European vassal states, NATO officials, and the brainwashed
European peoples will support the coup against Trump.
The only ones speaking against the coup are the voters who elected Trump-all of whom are alleged to have been deceived by Russian
fake news -- the Russian government, and the 200 websites falsely described by the Washington Post and the secret organization PropOrNot
as Russian agents.
In other words, those objecting to the coup are the ones described by the coup leaders as those who made the coup necessary.
I do not know that the coup will succeed, but looking at the commitment so many high level people have made to the coup, I conclude
that those bringing the coup expect it to succeed.
Therefore, we should take very seriously the expectation of success that those who control levers of power are demonstrating.?
As usual, Paul Craig Roberts is dead-on correct. Just wish Mr. T. would hook him up in some way in the new admin as an economic
adivosor of some sorts. He could make a yuuuuuuuge difference.
Above and beyond what is going on behind the scenes they are pushing for all out civil war. If the electors vote for Trump then
it's on to Jan.20 where multiple sources are calling out for an outright riot. Michael Moore is calling for a not a protest but
a revolution. In response, Trump supporters are now being encouraged to be 2nd amendment patriots to defend against a left wing
radical takeover. No matter what happens you can sure you won't hear the truth on the MSM. In fact TPTB are making sure right
now they shut down the "alt- right" lest any more muppets awaken.
"A whole group of trolls has been assigned to denigrate PCR's warning, which underlines its importance."
Count me in as one of those trolls, because I find PCR to be a sensationalist. In less than two weeks, limp-dick Obama won't
have another word to say about the "Russian hack", aka bullshit, and nothing Hillbilery has to say about anything will make any
more noise than a goose flying backwards and farting in a thunderstorm.
The CIA, along with Boeing and all the other contractors, banks, insurers, and rabble of the Wall Street machine are the
Military Industrial Complex.
The Imperial City (D.C.) of Isengard and Mordor (Wall Street) want fresh bodies and blood to enrich themselves. No more pointless
wars! No more body bags for blood money!
When the hell will the U.S. Military cut off the head of the beast and restore the Republic?
We can hope Trump can hack his way there, but if not, step up soldiers!
This may be the last chance, tipping point is here.
I have believed PCR is controlled opposition for a while now. I also believe the electors will, like the American People, deliver
Trump to the Oval Office. I also believe this whole mess is mainly aimed at undermining Trump's mandate from the People so repugs
in CONgress can give him a hard time. That won't work either because they'll be inundated with demands from their constituencies.
Screw 'em.
I agree with the premise of this article, but disagree that the deep state expects to succeed in a coup via the Electors. Using
the tired metaphor, the deep state plays chess. They are merely laying the groundwork for something later.
Paul Craig Roberts...the Armed Forces are with Trump. The CIA are a bunch of effete college girly-boys that should be outed
and either be arrested or die for crimes against the state.
FUCK THE CIA and their contractors. Whores for sale to the highest bidder. Enemies of the Republic. Death to them all!
If the Defense-Industrial Complex does overturn the election, their victory will be their pyrrhic last stand and it will be the
end of its dominance. The American people will totally destroy it.
what the United States and NATO are doing on Russia's western frontier is similar to what the German Wehrmacht did in preparation
for Operation Barbarossa.
...but we lost because every POTUS since JFK is a show pony or he goes to the glue factory (and he knows it). The establishment
won again so we wait in the shadows for the aging angry beast to die...
So, all indications are that he will receive > 270 electoral votes on 12/19, so the next day of action for this cabal is Jan.
6th when they can again attempt to overturn?
So we will have a lot of propaganda thrown at us yet again trying to influence that, but a) how many people actually pay attention
to this crap expecially over the holiday season, and b) how many people pay attention to the MSM anymore anyhow.
That is a large part of their angst - nobody seems to be listening to their bullshit.
I think that's when the House actual gives there nihil obstat and impramatur to the electoral college votes, and so members can
attempt to hang the process up there as per this below which was in the original article.
Andrea Chalupa @AndreaChalupa Dec 11
1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan.
6 in Congress
2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member
& 1 Senator
3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out
in federal law.
...
Once Trump gets in office the resultant corruption probe afterwards should be epic! We'll know by Monday if the electoral college
stays the course or steers the country towards anarchy.
Seems to me the CIA and the POTUS has made a complete mess of the world. Do the people really have a desire for them to solve
the problem when they caused the problem??? I think not!
I have CIA contacts.
They are freaked. .. It is even affecting some of them in the physical health department. (Not enough of them. IMHO.)
Now is NOT the time to fold to intimidation or threats. Now is the time to double down and make them back up threats and/or
expose themselves and show exactly which side they are on.
They DO NOT have enough manpower or assets in the states (or anywhere) to silence everyone.
If the Satanic Witch or other Ass Wipes Inc puppet other than Donald Trump (I'm not 100% sure about him but he is the best
shot we have, IMO.) gets put into office, shaking off these assholes will be much harder or impossible all together.
And BTW, in case you think you can just close your eyes and tuck back in a hole until the battle is over they have plans well
under way to kill you and your family anyway. .. I'm sure if you have read any of my previous posts you know what some of those
ways are.
That's my field report and firm recommendations for 12/17/16.
Live Hard, The CIA / CeyeA Are Not The Good Guys Here, Not Even Close, Die Free
I notice Trump has more than a few ex military people around him. A few generals. I wonder if the would call to active military
to stand down? Or to counter a coup?
My first thoughts after Trump selected the Generals was to organize a Military-lead counter coup. He has also aligned a massive
amount of wealth by his other appointments. I pray & hope I am correct.
The Republican electors their families and the GOP have way too much to lose. Republicans will never get elected again...and all
their lives would be in danger. Plus you would get domestic terror groups spring up across the country. Remember Trump won most
of the counties so his support is strong and getting stronger.
The soros and clintons of the world will not be able to control the backlash as they think..and you really would then see russia
and china stiring up big trouble in america.
Donald Trump, doesn't strike me as the type of person, that would lay down for such criminality... and if he puts up a fight,
like I think he will, anyone that supports him will fight with him. You can count me in that fighting group!
"... Ukraine has been screaming for the US to start a war with Russia for the past 2 1/2 years. ..."
"... Is Ukrainian Intelligence trying to invent a reason for the US to take a hard-line stance against Russia? Are they using Crowdstrike to carry this out? ..."
"... Meet the real Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, part of the groups that are targeting Ukrainian positions for the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. These people were so tech savvy they didn't know the Ukrainian SBU (Ukrainian CIA/internal security) records every phone call and most internet use in Ukraine and Donbass. Donbass still uses Ukrainian phone and internet services. ..."
"... This is a civil war and people supporting either side are on both sides of the contact line. The SBU is awestruck because there are hundreds if not thousands of people helping to target the private volunteer armies supported by Ukrainian-Americans. ..."
"... If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news. The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by Russian actors based on the work done by Alexandra Chalupa? That is the conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the Russian government connection. These words mirror Dimitri Alperovitch's identification process in his interview with PBS Judy Woodruff. ..."
"... How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a presidential election in a new direction. ..."
"... According to Esquire.com , Alperovitch has vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the measures taken were directly because of his work. ..."
"... Still, this is not enough to show a conflict of interest. Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers do. When it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016. ..."
"... According to Robert Parry's article At the forefront of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council. Their main goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
"... The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia. Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support throughout the campaign. ..."
"... What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or Homeland Security? ..."
"... Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers. ..."
"... When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and its hackers individually . There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. ..."
"... Alperovitch and Fancy Bear tweet each other? ..."
"... Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network ..."
"... In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA. They consider the CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity, Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency." ..."
"... Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence. The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could be on the list. ..."
"... This single tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it to themselves and not draw unwanted attention. ..."
"... Pravy Sektor Hackers and Crowdstrike? ..."
"... What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored, Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are also laughing at US intel efforts. ..."
"... The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated. ..."
"... According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any other way," he told me. "I have." ..."
"... While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to Ukraine. ..."
In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing the
2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing substantial
to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security firm Crowdstrike
that is clearly not on par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is
an "as is" statement showing this.
The difference between Dmitri Alperovitch's claims which are reflected in JAR-1620296 and
this article is that enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of specific
parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors that need to
be investigated for real crimes.
For instance, the malware used was an out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one
other interesting point is that the Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe
is from Ukraine . How did Crowdstrike miss this when it is their business to know?
Later in this article you'll meet and know a little more about the real "Fancy Bear and Cozy
Bear." The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words
like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution.
The article is lengthy because the facts need to be in one place. The bar Dimitri
Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking America to
trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of Russian
involvement?
The December 29th JAR adds a flowchart that shows how a basic phishing hack is performed. It
doesn't add anything significant beyond that. Noticeably, they use both their designation APT
28 and APT 29 as well as the Crowdstrike labels of Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear separately.
This is important because information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of
rumor or unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to
be free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90's that
every private actor in the information game was radically political.
The
Hill.com article about Russia hacking the electric grid is a perfect example of why this
intelligence is political and not taken seriously. If any proof of Russian involvement existed,
the US would be at war. Under current laws of war, there would be no difference between an
attack on the power grid or a missile strike.
According
to the Hill "Private security firms provided more detailed forensic analysis, which the FBI
and DHS said Thursday correlated with the IC's findings.
"The Joint Analysis Report recognizes the excellent work undertaken by
security companies and private sector network owners and operators, and provides new indicators
of compromise and malicious infrastructure
identified during the course of investigations and incident response," read a statement. The
report identities two Russian intelligence groups already named by CrowdStrike and other
private security firms."
In an interview with Washingtonsblog , William Binney, the creator of the NSA global
surveillance system said "I expected to see the IP's or other signatures of APT's 28/29 [the
entities which the U.S. claims hacked the Democratic emails] and where they were located and
how/when the data got transferred to them from DNC/HRC [i.e. Hillary Rodham Clinton]/etc. They
seem to have been following APT 28/29 since at least 2015, so, where are they?"
According to the latest Washington Post story, Crowdstrike's CEO tied a group his company
dubbed "Fancy Bear" to targeting Ukrainian artillery positions in Debaltsevo as well as across
the Ukrainian civil war front for the past 2 years.
Alperovitch states in many articles the Ukrainians were using an Android app to target the
self-proclaimed Republics positions and that hacking this app was what gave targeting data to
the armies in Donbass instead.
Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with McAfee.
Asked to comment on Alperovitch's
discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John McAfee had this to say. "Based on all of his
experience, McAfee does not believe that Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic
National Committee (DNC), John Podesta's emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
As he told RT, "if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the
Russians."
How does Crowdstrike's story part with reality? First is the admission that it is probably,
maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. "
Intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin
'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks."
The public evidence never goes beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or
using facts, Crowdstrike insists that it's Russia behind both Clinton's and the Ukrainian
losses. NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant
for NBC.
According to NBC the story reads like this."
The company, Crowdstrike, was hired by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report
publicly attributing it to Russian intelligence. One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is
Shawn Henry, a former senior FBI official who consults for NBC News.
"But the Russians used the app to turn the tables on their foes, Crowdstrike says. Once a
Ukrainian soldier downloaded it on his Android phone, the Russians were able to eavesdrop on
his communications and determine his position through geo-location.
In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian intelligence
agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers call Cozy Bear, is
believed to be linked to Russia's CIA, known as the FSB. The other, known as Fancy Bear, is
believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called the GRU."
The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above "believed to be."
According to the December 12th Intercept article "Most importantly, the Post adds that
"intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin
'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks."
Because Ukrainian soldiers are using a smartphone app they activate their geolocation to use
it. Targeting is from location to location. The app would need the current user location to
make it work.
In 2015 I wrote an article that showed many of the available open source tools that
geolocate, and track people. They even show street view. This means that using simple means,
someone with freeware or an online website, and not a military budget can look at what you are
seeing at any given moment.
Where Crowdstrike fails is insisting people believe that the code they see is (a) an
advanced way to geolocate and (b) it was how a state with large resources would do it. Would
you leave a calling card where you would get caught and fined through sanctions or worse? If
you use an anonymous online resource at least Crowdstrike won't believe you are Russian and
possibly up to something.
If you read that article and watch the video you'll see that using "geo-stalker" is a better
choice if you are on a low budget or no budget. Should someone tell the Russians they
overpaid?
According to Alperovitch, the smartphone app
plotted targets in about 15 seconds . This means that there is only a small window to get
information this way.
Using the open source tools I wrote about previously, you could track your targets all-day.
In 2014, most Ukrainian forces were using social media regularly. It would be easy to maintain
a map of their locations and track them individually.
From my research into those tools, someone using Python scripts would find it easy to take
photos, listen to conversations, turn on GPS, or even turn the phone on when they chose to.
Going a step further than Alperovitch, without the help of the Russian government, GRU, or FSB,
anyone could
take control of the drones Ukraine is fond of flying and land them. Or they could download
the footage the drones are taking. It's copy and paste at that point. Would you bother the FSB,
GRU, or Vladimir Putin with the details or just do it?
In the WaPo article Alperovitch states "The Fancy Bear crew evidently hacked the app,
allowing the GRU to use the phone's GPS coordinates to track the Ukrainian troops'
position.
In that way, the Russian military could then target the Ukrainian army with artillery and
other weaponry. Ukrainian brigades operating in eastern Ukraine were on the front lines of the
conflict with Russian-backed separatist forces during the early stages of the conflict in late
2014, CrowdStrike noted. By late 2014, Russian forces in the region numbered about 10,000. The
Android app was useful in helping the Russian troops locate Ukrainian artillery positions."
In late 2014,
I personally did the only invasive passport and weapons checks that I know of during the
Ukrainian civil war.
I spent days looking for the Russian army every major publication said were attacking
Ukraine. The keyword Cyber Security industry leader Alperovitch used is "evidently."
Crowdstrike noted that in late 2014, there were 10,000 Russian forces in the region.
When I did the passport and weapons check, it was under the condition there would be no
telephone calls. We went where I wanted to go. We stopped when I said to stop. I checked the
documents and the weapons with no obstacles. The weapons check was important because Ukraine
was stating that Russia was giving Donbass modern weapons at the time. Each weapon is stamped
with a manufacture date. The results are in the articles above.
Based on my findings which the CIA would call hard evidence, almost all the fighters had
Ukrainian passports. There are volunteers from other countries. In Debaltsevo today, I would
question Alperovitch's assertion of Russian troops based on the fact the passports will be
Ukrainian and reflect my earlier findings. There is no possibly, could be, might be, about
it.
The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that
Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment . Although subtitles aren't on it, the former
Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine would have
been in deep trouble.
How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this wrong on easily checked detail and
still get this much media attention? Could the investment made by Google and some
very large players have anything to do with the media Crowdstrike is causing?
According to Alperovitch, the CEO of a $150 million dollar cyber security company "And when
you think about, well, who would be interested in targeting Ukraine artillerymen in eastern
Ukraine who has interest in hacking the Democratic Party, Russia government comes to mind, but
specifically, Russian military that would have operational over forces in the Ukraine and would
target these artillerymen."
That statement is most of the proof of Russian involvement he has. That's it, that's all the
CIA, FBI have to go on. It's why they can't certify the intelligence. It's why they can't get
beyond the threshold of maybe.
Woodruff then asked two important questions. She asked if Crowdstrike was still working for
the DNC. Alperovitch responded "We're protecting them going forward. The investigation is
closed in terms of what happened there. But certainly, we've seen the campaigns, political
organizations are continued to be targeted, and they continue to hire us and use our technology
to protect themselves."
Based on the evidence he presented Woodruff, there is no need to investigate further?
Obviously, there is no need, the money is rolling in.
Second and most important Judy Woodruff asked if there were any questions about conflicts of
interest, how he would answer? This is where Dmitri Alperovitch's story starts to unwind.
His response was "Well, this report was not about the DNC. This report was about information
we uncovered about what these Russian actors were doing in eastern Ukraine in terms of locating
these artillery units of the Ukrainian army and then targeting them. So, what we just did is
said that it looks exactly as the same to the evidence we've already uncovered from the DNC,
linking the two together."
Why is this reasonable statement going to take his story off the rails? First, let's look at
the facts surrounding his evidence and then look at the real conflicts of interest involved.
While carefully evading the question, he neglects to state his conflicts of interest are worthy
of a DOJ investigation. Can you mislead the federal government about national security issues
and not get investigated yourself?
If Alperovitch's evidence is all there is, then the US government owes some large apologies
to Russia.
After showing who is targeting Ukrainian artillerymen, we'll look at what might be a
criminal conspiracy.
Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary Clinton the
election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in Ukraine. If Dimitri
Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing intelligence to 17 US
Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?
Ukraine has been screaming for the US to start a war with Russia for the past 2 1/2 years.
Using facts accepted by leaders on both sides of the conflict, the main proof Crowdstrike shows
for evidence doesn't just unravel, it falls apart. Is Ukrainian Intelligence trying to invent a
reason for the US to take a hard-line stance against Russia? Are they using Crowdstrike to
carry this out?
Real Fancy Bear?
Meet the real Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, part of the groups that are targeting Ukrainian
positions for the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. These people were so tech savvy they
didn't know the Ukrainian SBU (Ukrainian CIA/internal security) records every phone call and
most internet use in Ukraine and Donbass. Donbass still uses Ukrainian phone and internet
services.
These are normal people fighting back against private volunteer armies that target their
homes, schools, and hospitals. The private volunteer armies like Pravy Sektor, Donbas
Battalion, Azov, and Aidar have been cited for atrocities like child rape, torture, murder, and
kidnapping. That just gets the ball rolling. These are a large swath of the Ukrainian
servicemen Crowdstrike hopes to protect.
This story which just aired on Ukrainian news channel TCN shows the SBU questioning and
arresting some of what they call an army of people in the Ukrainian-controlled areas. This news
video shows people in Toretsk that provided targeting information to Donbass and people
probably caught up in the net accidentally.
This is a civil war and people supporting either side are on both sides of the contact line.
The SBU is awestruck because there are hundreds if not thousands of people helping to target
the private volunteer armies supported by Ukrainian-Americans.
The first person they show on the video is a woman named Olga Lubochka. On the video her
voice is heard from a recorded call saying " In the field, on the left about 130 degrees. Aim
and you'll get it." and then " Oh, you hit it so hard you leveled it to the ground.""Am I going
to get a medal for this?"
Other people caught up in the raid claim and probably were only calling friends they know.
It's common for people to call and tell their family about what is going on around them. This
has been a staple in the war especially in outlying villages for people aligned with both sides
of the conflict. A neighbor calls his friend and says "you won't believe what I just saw."
Another "fancy bear," Alexander Schevchenko was caught calling friends and telling them that
armored personnel carriers had just driven by.
Anatoli Prima, father of a DNR(Donetsk People's Republic) soldier was asked to find out what
unit was there and how many artillery pieces.
One woman providing information about fuel and incoming equipment has a husband fighting on
the opposite side in Gorlovka. Gorlovka is a major city that's been under artillery attack
since 2014. For the past 2 1/2 years, she has remained in their home in Toretsk. According to
the video, he's vowed to take no prisoners when they rescue the area.
When asked why they hate Ukraine so much, one responded that they just wanted things to go
back to what they were like before the coup in February 2014.
Another said they were born in the Soviet Union and didn't like what was going on in Kiev.
At the heart of this statement is the anti- OUN, antinationalist sentiment that most people
living in Ukraine feel. The OUNb Bandera killed millions of people in Ukraine, including
starving 3 million Soviet soldiers to death. The new Ukraine was founded
in 1991 by OUN nationalists outside the fledgling country.
Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If it's
done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be investigated? If
unwinding the story from the "targeting of Ukrainian volunteers" side isn't enough, we should
look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia influencing the election and DNC
hack story evolve? Who's involved? Does this pose conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch
and Crowdstrike? And let's face it, a hacking story isn't complete until real hackers with the
skills, motivation, and reason are exposed.
In the last article exploring the
DNC hacks the focus was on the Chalupas . The article focused on Alexandra, Andrea, and
Irene Chalupa. Their participation in the DNC hack story is what brought it to international
attention in the first place.
According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page "
After Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter
to a meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns within
the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. "That's when we knew it was the Russians,"
said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal probe into the
hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, "we told her to stop her
research."" July 25, 2016
If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her sister
Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news. The DNC hacking
investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by Russian actors based on the
work done by Alexandra Chalupa? That is the conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and
obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the Russian government connection. These words mirror
Dimitri Alperovitch's identification process in his interview with PBS Judy Woodruff.
How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he should
have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a presidential election
in a new direction.
According to Esquire.com ,
Alperovitch has vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the
past. Because of his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said
the measures taken were directly because of his work.
Still, this is not enough to show a conflict of interest. Alperovitch's relationships with
the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian propagandists, and Ukrainian state
supported hackers do. When it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that
tried hard to influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.
In my
previous article I showed in detail how the Chalupas fit into this. A brief bullet point
review looks like this.
The Chalupas are not Democrat or Republican. They are OUNb. The OUNb worked hard to start
a war between the USA and Russia for the last 50 years. According to the
Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, "Other statements
were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera
wing) called for" What is OUNb Bandera? They follow the same political policy and platform
that was developed in the 1930's by Stepan Bandera. When these people go to a Holocaust
memorial they are celebrating both the dead and the OUNb SS that killed
There is no getting around this fact. The OUNb have no concept of democratic values and
want an authoritarian fascism.
Alexandra Chalupa- According
to the Ukrainian Weekly , "The effort, known as Digital Miadan, gained momentum following
the initial Twitter storms. Leading the effort were: Lara Chelak, Andrea Chalupa, Alexandra
Chalupa, Constatin Kostenko and others." The Digital Maidan was also how they raised money
for the coup. This was how the Ukrainian
emigres bought the bullets that were used on Euromaidan. Ukraine's chubby nazi, Dima
Yarosh stated openly he was taking money from the Ukrainian emigres during Euromaidan and
Pravy Sektor still fundraises openly in North America. The "Sniper
Massacre" on the Maidan in Ukraine by Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottowa shows
clearly detailed evidence how the massacre happened. It has Pravy Sektor confessions that
show who created the "heavenly hundred. Their admitted involvement as leaders of Digital
Maidan by both Chalupas is a
clear violation of the Neutrality Act and has up to a 25
year prison sentence attached to it because it ended in a coup.
Andrea Chalupa-2014, in a Huff Post article Sept. 1 2016, Andrea Chalupa described
Sviatoslav Yurash as one of Ukraine's important "dreamers." He is a young activist that
founded Euromaidan
Press . Beyond the gushing glow what she doesn't say is who he actually is. Sviatoslav
Yurash was Dmitri Yarosh's spokesman just after Maidan. He is a hardcore Ukrainian
nationalist and was rewarded with the Deputy Director
position for the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) in Kiev .
In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He became the
foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni Yatsenyuk, and Oleh
Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet Dimitri Yurash you had
to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found out.
At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense of Ukraine
under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh's spokesman and can be seen either behind Yarosh on
videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to reporters. From January 2014 onward, to
speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an appointment with Yurash.
Irene Chalupa- Another involved Chalupa we need to cover to do the story justice is Irene
Chalupa. From her bio – Irena
Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center.
She is also a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has
worked for more than twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the
Atlantic Council, where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the
news anchor for Ukraine's propaganda channel org She is also a Ukrainian
emigre leader.
According to
Robert Parry's article At the forefront of people that would have taken senior positions in
a Clinton administration and especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council. Their main
goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the
CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with
Russia. Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you
willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support
throughout the campaign.
What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the
Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship
status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite conflict
of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground and Clinton
needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or Homeland
Security?
When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that could
change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked heavily to
groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it opens up criminal
conspiracy.
If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants a
major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic Council and
clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of his work affects
the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri Alperovitch's case, he
found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a crime.
Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence groups
is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and Informnapalm.org which is the outlet
for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.
When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the CEO of
a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm
and its hackers individually . There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for
the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be
investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government.
Alperovitch and Fancy Bear tweet each other?
Crowdstrike is also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC
hack. It closely resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.
Crowdstrike's product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon Overwatch and
Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service Crowdstrike offers?
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he
writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This
image shows Crowdstrike in their network.
Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network
In an interview with
Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA. They consider the CIA
amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance is a
quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity, Falcon
Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the Myrotvorets
site, Informnapalm analytical agency."
In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The
network communication goes through a secondary source. This is something you do when you don't
want to be too obvious. Here is another example of that.
Ukrainian Intelligence and the real Fancy Bear?
Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for
Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence.
The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates
journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could
be on the list.
Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine's Information Ministry (UA Intelligence)
tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the Ukrainian
Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter.
Trying to keep it hush hush?
This single tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of
Information Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him
and Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or shared.
If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be shared
heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it to themselves
and not draw unwanted attention.
These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through the
portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded and
directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and with to
promote the story of Russian hacking.
Pravy Sektor Hackers and Crowdstrike?
When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article, one of the
hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh's Pravy Sektor members by the Pravy
Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor admitted to killing the people at the
Maidan protest and sparked the coup.
Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say" Let's understand that
Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very powerful group. Ukrainian
hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of the USA I don't know, why would we
need it? We have all the talent and special means for this. And I don't think that the USA or
any NATO country would make such sharp movements in international politics."
What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it out
for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored, Russian
language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack they have the
tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are also laughing at US
intel efforts.
The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting a war
between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt Russia worst.
Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by Alperovitch, both he
and these hackers need to be investigated.
According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought the
government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of the personal
in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate the freedoms we have,
the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any other way," he told me. "I
have."
While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism is
not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering a conflict
with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't serving US interests.
He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to Ukraine.
The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for conflict of
interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these hackers are the real
Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in international politics.
By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment of an outgoing President of
the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of rumor.
From the Observer.com , " Andrea
Chalupa -- the sister of DNC
research staffer Alexandra Chalupa -- claimed on
social media, without any evidence, that despite Clinton
conceding the election to Trump, the voting results need to be audited to because
Clinton couldn't have lost -- it must have been Russia. Chalupa hysterically
tweeted to every politician on Twitter to audit the vote because of Russia and claimed the TV
show The Americans
, about two KGB spies living in America, is real."
Quite possibly now the former UK Ambassador Craig Murry's admission of being the involved
party to "leaks" should be looked at. " Now both Julian
Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia . Do we credibly
have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access
to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access.
After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for
truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has
released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for
inconvenient truth telling."
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call
the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a
brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he
would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the
corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he
wanted to during the campaign.
Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion
with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of
paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which
the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe
or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him
to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by
all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the
zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.
The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine
with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have
been there anyway.
No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The
Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they
have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful
way
The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a
threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.
The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The
rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was
really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion
on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was
hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people."
All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were
the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present.
A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated
the 98% poor, to stay rich.
When there were insurrections federal troops restored order.
Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It
is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from
it.
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America
and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and
Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.
Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and
unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident
Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story
after another would achieve the desired result "
But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out
neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions
fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.
I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's
not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of
brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and
facts don't matter!
Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about
intimidating them.
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then
devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no,
the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in
the less-mainstream fake news media.
So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too
stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The
US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the
WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or
cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.
By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose
of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and
most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which
means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite
Mohammedans.
So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of
hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an
attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.
The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the
Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless
lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was,
and that means as bad as Hell itself.
Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable
approach for a book.
Here's the problem.
Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The
custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of
photoshopping.
OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had
made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist
wouldn't be paid.
Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the
60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major
role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally
flawed. I would say more so.
All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The
triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind
and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..
America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution
and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the
greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side
of American history is taught.
"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate
this level of panic."
You continue to claim what you cannot prove.
But then you are a Jews First Zionist.
Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of
"Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a
straight face
Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually
coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and
permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.
Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks
from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.
The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys
Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were
the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.
After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with
the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924,
despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.
Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil
fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they
should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad
today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else
wanted.
'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" --
Michael Kenney
Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the
catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1)
by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by
NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.
It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans.
OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do
Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a
half.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration.
I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration.
While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The
second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by
Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling.
Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American
public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.
The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst
has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton
gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.
This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.
The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the
Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of
these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.
[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held
views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist
line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign
policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also
long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.
Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of
state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not
appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on
Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with
Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete
withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.
Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it
would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling
Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third
major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who
has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel
Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016,
donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in
Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]
Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It
means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources
and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital
the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US
debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will
steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in
Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple
Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington
must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate
their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain
its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to
success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.
American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency,
and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state –
particularly the Chinese.
First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists
defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army
conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic
ambitions.
The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.
Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news
gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who
dictates what they can and can't say.
They are given the political line and they broadcast it.
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with
the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for
the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is
that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by
factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people. That can only lead to trouble.
At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the
media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet
Bolshevik model.
On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the
Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's
Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt,
compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most
people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of
mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into
something much worse.
The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are
maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with
neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources
in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last
events show – with acceleration.
It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for
those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free"
population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the
free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start
one.
All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.
The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not
improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.
Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the
deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy"
narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they
were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and
CIA-trained.
Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign
nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's
that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six
month actions – they go on and on.)
Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the
grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these
politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave
office.)
Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are
we attacking with drones? Where is congress?
Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it
goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them
more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!
9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various
peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.
We are being exceptionally arrogant.
Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.
Trump actually proved to be very convenient President to CIA., Probably as convenient as Obama... Both completely outsourced
foreign policy to neocons and CIA )in this sense the appointment of Pompeo is worst joke Trump could play with the remnants of
US democracy_ .
Notable quotes:
"... "The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street." ..."
"... "It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads." ..."
"... Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups. ..."
"... "So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him." ..."
"... But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. ..."
"... He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable. ..."
And on the heels of
Dennis Kucinich's warnings , The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with
the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous.
As TheAntiMedia's Carey Wedler notes ,
Greenwald asserted in
an interview with Democracy Now, published on Thursday, that this boils down to a fight between the Deep State and the Trump administration.
Though Greenwald has argued the leaks were "wholly justified" in spite of the fact they violated criminal law, he also questioned
the motives behind them.
"It's very possible - I'd say likely - that the motive here was vindictive rather than noble," he wrote. "Whatever else is true,
this is a case where the intelligence community, through strategic (and illegal) leaks, destroyed one of its primary adversaries
in the Trump White House."
"The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies:
the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the
Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement
of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street."
As Greenwald explained during his interview:
"It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate
disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the
world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads."
Greenwald believes this division is a result of the Deep State's disapproval of Trump's foreign policy and the fact that the intelligence
community overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton over Trump because of her hawkish views. Greenwald
noted that Mike Morell,
acting CIA chief under Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and NSA under George W. Bush, openly spoke out against Trump
during the presidential campaign.
Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria.
In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead
advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups.
"So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was
exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout
the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him."
"[In] the closing months of the Obama administration, they put together a deal with Russia to create peace in Syria. A few
days later, a military strike in Syria killed a hundred Syrian soldiers and that ended the agreement. What happened is inside
the intelligence and the Pentagon there was a deliberate effort to sabotage an agreement the White House made."
Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of
undermining Trump is dangerous. "Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated
and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving," he said, likely alluding to a recent court ruling that nullified Trump's travel
ban.
He continued:
"But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to
urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity."
He argues that mentality is "a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it," highlighting that members
of both prevailing political parties are praising the Deep State's audacity in leaking details of Flynn's conversations.
As he wrote in his article, " it's hard to put into words how strange it is to watch the very same people - from both parties,
across the ideological spectrum - who called for the heads of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and so many other Obama-era
leakers today heap praise on those who leaked the highly sensitive, classified SIGINT information that brought down Gen. Flynn."
He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence
during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable.
Pretty interesting video... no we know that the Swamp consumed Flatfooted Donald rather quickly
Notable quotes:
"... Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal ..."
"... Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice? ..."
"... FakeStream Media ..."
"... The very Fake Media has met their match ..."
Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture
a Trump scandal
Louis John 2 hours ago
@hexencoff
McCain is a trouble maker. supporter of the terrorist and warmonger Iraq Libya
Syria he is behind all the trouble scumbag
Gary M 3 hours ago
McCain is a globalist
belaghoulashi 2 hours ago
(edited) McCain has always been full of horseshit. And he has always relied on people calling
him a hero to get away with it. That schtick is old, the man is a monumental failure for this
country, and he needs to have his sorry butt kicked.
ryvr madduck 1 hour ago
+belaghoulashi
Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the
ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed
him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's
exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain
then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should
have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice?
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
When you start to drain the swamp, the swamp creatures start to show.
Alexus Highfield 3 hours ago
@Michael Cambo
don't they...they do say shit floats.
Geoffry Allan 41 minutes ago
@Michael Cambo
- Trump has not drained the swamp he has surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet who
don't give a damn about the working middle class who struggle e eryday to make a living -
explain to me how he is draining the swamp
tim sparks 3 hours ago
Trump is trying so fucking hard to do a good job for us.
Integrity Truth-seeker 2 hours ago
@tim sparks
He is not trying... HE IS DOING IT... Like A Boss. Thank God Mark Taylor Prophecies
2017 the best is yet to come
Jodi Boin 3 hours ago
McCain is a traitor and is bought and paid for by Soros.
Grant Davidson 4 hours ago
Love him or hate him. The guy is a frikkin Genius...
Patrick Reagan 4 hours ago
FakeStream Media
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
@Patrick Reagan
Very FakeStream Media
aspengold5 4 hours ago
I am so disappointed in McCain.
orlando pablo 4 hours ago
my 401k is keep on going up....thank u mr trump....
Dumbass Libtard 3 hours ago
McCain is not a Republican. He is a loser. Yuge difference.1
Mitchel Colvin 3 hours ago
Shut up McCain! I can't stand this clown anymore! Unfortunately, Arizona re-elected him for six
more years!
robert barham 4 hours ago
The very Fake Media has met their match
H My ways of thinking! 3 hours ago
Why does everyone feel that if they don't kiss McCain's ass, they are being un American? Mccain
has sold out to George Soros. He is a piece of shit who is guilty of no less than treason! Look
up the definition for treason if you're in doubt!
Sam Nardo 3 hours ago
(edited) Mc Cain and Graham are two of the best democrats in the GOP. They are called RINOS
kazzicup 3 hours ago
We love and support our President Donald Trump. The media is so dishonest. CNN = Criminal News
Network.
Geoffry Allan 34 minutes ago
@kazzicup - yeah if you get rid of the media Trump becomes
a dictator - is that what you want he will censor everything and tell you what he wants - Trump
is still president and he is doing his job and fulfilling his promises even though the media is
there and reporting - so what's the problem - I don't want a got damn dictator running this country
- if you don't like the media then just listen to Trump - 2nd amendment free speech and the right
to bear arms we have to respect it even if we may disagree
So the coup against the President was exposed already in Jan 2017 and Trump did not take any measures to prevent the appointment
of the Special Prosecutor.
Notable quotes:
"... The stories about Russian intelligence supposedly filming Trump in a high-end Moscow hotel with prostitutes have been circulating around Washington for months. I was briefed about them by a Hillary Clinton associate who was clearly hopeful that the accusations would be released before the election and thus further damage Trump's chances. But the alleged video never seemed to surface and the claims had all the earmarks of a campaign dirty trick. ..."
"... However, now the tales of illicit frolic have been elevated to another level. They have been inserted into an official U.S. intelligence report, the details of which were leaked first to CNN and then to other mainstream U.S. news media outlets. ..."
"... In American history, legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was infamous for using his agency to develop negative information on a political figure and then letting the person know that the FBI had the dirt and certainly would not want it to become public – if only the person would do what the FBI wanted, whether that was to reappoint Hoover to another term or to boost the FBI's budget or – in the infamous case of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – perhaps to commit suicide. ..."
"... Still, perhaps the more troubling issue is whether the U.S. intelligence community has entered a new phase of politicization in which its leadership feels that it has the responsibility to weed out "unfit" contenders for the presidency. During the general election campaign, a well-placed intelligence source told me that the intelligence community disdained both Clinton and Trump and hoped to discredit both of them with the hope that a more "acceptable" person could move into the White House for the next four years. ..."
"... Then, after the election, President Obama's CIA began leaking allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic emails and provided them to WikiLeaks to reveal how the DNC undermined Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign and what Clinton had told Wall Street bigwigs in paid speeches that she had sought to keep secret from the American people. ..."
"... Now, we are seeing what looks like a new phase in this "stop (or damage) Trump" strategy, the inclusion of anti-Trump dirt in an official intelligence report that was then leaked to the major media. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart. ..."
"... The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet) ..."
"... At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people". ..."
"... I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence. ..."
"... Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government? ..."
Exclusive: President-elect Trump is fending off a U.S. intelligence leak of unproven allegations
that he cavorted with Russian prostitutes, but the darker story might be the CIA's intervention in
U.S. politics, reports Robert Parry.
The decision by the U.S. intelligence community to include in an official report some unverified
and salacious accusations against President-elect Donald Trump resembles a tactic out of FBI Director
J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information
about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press.
Legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover
In this case, as leaders of the U.S. intelligence community were pressing Trump to accept their
assessment that the Russian government had tried to bolster Trump's campaign by stealing and leaking
actual emails harmful to Hillary Clinton's campaign, Trump was confronted with this classified "appendix"
describing claims about him cavorting with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room.
Supposedly, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan included
the unproven allegations in the report under the rationale that the Russian government might have
videotaped Trump's misbehavior and thus could use it to blackmail him. But the U.S. intelligence
community also had reasons to want to threaten Trump who has been critical of its performance and
who has expressed doubts about its analysis of the Russian "hacking."
After the briefing last Friday, Trump and his incoming administration did shift their position,
accepting the intelligence community's assessment that the Russian government hacked the emails of
the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's campaign chief John Podesta. But I'm told Trump saw
no evidence that Russia then leaked the material to WikiLeaks and has avoided making that concession.
Still, Trump's change in tone was noted by the mainstream media and was treated as an admission
that he was abandoning his earlier skepticism. In other words, he was finally getting onboard the
intelligence community's Russia-did-it bandwagon. Now, however, we know that Trump simultaneously
had been confronted with the possibility that the unproven stories about him engaging in unorthodox
sex acts with prostitutes could be released, embarrassing him barely a week before his inauguration.
The classified report, with the explosive appendix, was also given to President Obama and the
so-called "Gang of Eight," bipartisan senior members of Congress responsible for oversight of the
intelligence community, which increased chances that the Trump accusations would be leaked to the
press, which indeed did happen.
Circulating Rumors
The stories about Russian intelligence supposedly filming Trump in a high-end Moscow hotel with
prostitutes have been
circulating around Washington for months. I was briefed about them by a Hillary Clinton associate
who was clearly hopeful that the accusations would be released before the election and thus further
damage Trump's chances. But the alleged video never seemed to surface and the claims had all the
earmarks of a campaign dirty trick.
However, now the tales of illicit frolic have been elevated to another level. They have been inserted
into an official U.S. intelligence report, the details of which were leaked first to CNN and then
to other mainstream U.S. news media outlets.
Trump has denounced the story as "fake news" and it is certainly true that the juicy details –
reportedly assembled by a former British MI-6 spy named Christopher Steele – have yet to check out.
But the placement of the rumors in a U.S. government document gave the mainstream media an excuse
to publicize the material.
It's also allowed the media to again trot out the Russian word "kompromat" as if the Russians
invented the game of assembling derogatory information about someone and then using it to discredit
or blackmail the person.
In American history, legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was infamous for using his agency
to develop negative information on a political figure and then letting the person know that the FBI
had the dirt and certainly would not want it to become public – if only the person would do what
the FBI wanted, whether that was to reappoint Hoover to another term or to boost the FBI's budget
or – in the infamous case of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – perhaps to commit suicide.
However, in this case, it is not even known whether the Russians have any dirt on Trump. It could
just be rumors concocted in the middle of a hard-fought campaign, first among Republicans battling
Trump for the nomination (this opposition research was reportedly initiated by backers of Sen. Marco
Rubio in the GOP race) before being picked up by Clinton supporters for use in the general election.
Still, perhaps the more troubling issue is whether the U.S. intelligence community has entered
a new phase of politicization in which its leadership feels that it has the responsibility to weed
out "unfit" contenders for the presidency. During the general election campaign, a well-placed intelligence
source told me that the intelligence community disdained both Clinton and Trump and hoped to discredit
both of them with the hope that a more "acceptable" person could move into the White House for the
next four years.
Hurting Both Candidates
Though I was skeptical of that information, it did turn out that FBI Director James Comey, one
of the top officials in the intelligence community, badly damaged Clinton's campaign by deeming her
handling of her emails as Secretary of State "extremely careless" but deciding not to prosecute her
– and then in the last week of the campaign briefly reopening and then re-closing the investigation.
Then, after the election, President Obama's CIA began leaking allegations that Russian President
Vladimir Putin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic emails and provided them to WikiLeaks to
reveal how the DNC undermined Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign and what Clinton had told Wall Street
bigwigs in paid speeches that she had sought to keep secret from the American people.
The intelligence community's assessment set the stage for what could have been a revolt by the
Electoral College in which enough Trump delegates could have refused to vote for him to send the
election into the House of Representatives, where the states would choose the President from one
of the top three vote-getters in the Electoral College. The third-place finisher turned out to be
former Secretary of State Colin Powell who got four votes from Clinton delegates in Washington State.
But the Electoral College ploy failed when Trump's delegates proved overwhelmingly faithful to the
GOP candidate.
Now, we are seeing what looks like a new phase in this "stop (or damage) Trump" strategy, the
inclusion of anti-Trump dirt in an official intelligence report that was then leaked to the major
media.
Whether this move was meant to soften up Trump or whether the intelligence community genuinely
thought that the accusations might be true and deserved inclusion in a report on alleged Russian
interference in U.S. politics or whether it was some combination of the two, we are witnessing a
historic moment when the U.S. intelligence community has deployed its extraordinary powers within
the domain of U.S. politics. J. Edgar Hoover would be proud.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press
and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Excuse the mixed metaphors, but this looks like another entirely predictable nail in the coffin
of US democracy, as the chickens come home to roost. For some time it has been quite obvious the
CIA has been pulling strings from behind the scenes to make whatever puppet occupies the White
House dance to its tune. But it won't end there. Only when the CIA climbs completely out of the
coffin can the epic finale between the CIA, FBI and NSA begin.
The big question is as to how long the people of states like Texas and Florida stand by in
the wings as the theater catches fire.
There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been
struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political
elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart.
Jean-David , January 12, 2017 at 11:22 am
Don't mix your metaphors before they are hatched. ;-)
Reply
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 2:05 pm
There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has
been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a
political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart.
The United States has been accused of decadence for decades by Americans and non-Americans
without much concern being shown by anyone not in a certain minority. The great tragedy of a decadent
way of life is its durability.
In 1961 William Lederer's book, "A Nation of Sheep" revealed the abuse of American power and
the ignorance of the American people regarding this misrule. Nothing much has changed since then
except the names of the aggressors and their primary geographic areas of intended domination.
The mass of people are essentially clueless and content to believe whatever lies and salacious
tales are told them from the nation's Towers of Babel. This is in line with human history that
shows people of authoritarian dispositions tend to be more aggressive and dominant in politics
and commerce and the masses accept their lot as long as they get enough crumbs from establishment's
plate..
(The title of the book was also an insult to sheep, but that is another story.)
The saying goes, "power corrupts," but i believe that it is the corrupt who seek power to begin
with.
Most people are content to live and let live, to live by the golden rule, mind their own and reciprocate
kindness etc., etc.
Then there are those who get a thrill from exercising control over others. Those are the ones
who shoot straight to the top.
Jack Flanigan , January 14, 2017 at 1:47 am
An interesting and clear observation. As an australian I note our system is dominated by two
major parties (and I mean dominated) similar to the US. The two parties are vehicles for ambitious
and corrupt individuals to fast track political careers. The power rests in these organizations
and attracts the corrupt like bees to honey.
Reply
Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:09 pm
Bill, regarding your sense of human history I might add that for many centuries people couldn't
read, except for the aristocracy and the religious sects mostly. The reformation produced a 100
year war and literacy was at an all time low in Luthers time but something motivated them to fight
for such a long time, and it wasn't information nor intellect.
Where has our literacy gone which would prevent a repeat of endless war and violence these
days? Oh yes, corporate controlled media hiring people who are certain to have no critical thinking
skills, no moral rudder, nor worldly experience to shed the scales from their eyes. We are almost
in pre-Gutenberg times of short attention spans and 140 character 'news truths' covering the landscape
of the ignorant. One can only hope the Tower of the oligarchs Babel has rapidly decaying clay
feet. We certainly know how to reduce cultures more ancient than ours to ashes without so much
as a second thought regarding the sanctity of life. Where are all the pro-lifers now? Oh yeh,
that's only in the womb, and after the umbilical cord is cut they are fair game for destruction.
The US values we rave about will really hurt when other cultures treat us as they have been treated.
Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:32 pm
Or better yet, we are in Gutenberg times where the "type" is set by the big players and the
papers around the country keep the same type and only add ink. It's their only function now at
the national level to inhibit discourse, excluding this site of course.
Reply
Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:34 pm
Or better yet, we are in times of the early press machines, where the "type" is set by the
big players and the papers around the country keep the same type and only add ink. It's their
only function now at the national level, meant to inhibit discourse and ideas. (excluding this
site of course)
Reply
Wendi , January 12, 2017 at 5:41 pm
In its Hoover relation, this article reprises the passage in The Craft of Intelligence, by
Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet).
It describes the power struggle involved post-FDR, during-HST 1946-48, at the institution of
the CIA (The Agency was not legislatively enacted, only instituted through Executive Order.)
Hoover opposed the creation of an intelligence collection that would compete with the FBI's monopoly
of spies snoops and snitches.
The compromise settlement set the FBI with domestic coverage and the CIA with international
haunts for its spooks.
Come the the present day, they still have turf wars in power rivalry for budget money.
However, in effect, after the budget shuffle the two legions merge their 'assets' - making each
one double its real size. They join in advocating for (the oxymoronic) 'authoritarian morality,'
gaining both the unlawfulness funded in the Judiciary with same unlawfulness, (or, being 'outlaw,'
'above the law'), funded by the Executive.
You can depend that they employ the same techniques. Coercion, extortion, blackmail, assassination,
torture, defamation, slander and Press Release aspersion. The polity is hung pendant on those
strings the outlaws pull. Or, 'hanged' pendant.
As Hoover, so Clapper et al.
Trump seems to have reconsided, maybe recanted, his defiance of 'intelligence' after he has
seen some truth in it regarding things he knows he did in places he knows he was. He knows he
dare not let the public see him through the cyclopian 'eye' of the intelligentia illumination.
_____
My wit sez, Lo! That explains his undocumented wife - he heard about Russian mail-order brides
and flew off to visit the showroom. And brought back some capital equipment, manufactured in foreign
lands.
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:04 pm
The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's
text seems unavailable on the internet)
Try alibris or abebooks dot coms. They have copies.
Good comment Bryan, but I wonder if we should pay attention at all to this decline of everything,
not only of democracy. Yet, I wish to highlight two humorous comments which best characterise
the situation.
The first one was a title I saw on Russia-Insider website: "Trump watch out! John Brennan throws
even a kitchen sink at Trump in desperation."
The other was a comment by a zero-hedge reader: "Trump could have had sex with a goat in a
Moscow hotel room and be videod as much as I care if he only delivers on his election promises.
I voted based on his policy promises, not on his sexual preferences."
The sexual smear is so 20th century, the same as the CIA – obsolete.
Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 11:39 am
To continue on the humorous side, the vile RT has one on the Pornhub reporting a huge increase
in searches for "Golden Showers". Perhaps the kiddies are adding a new term to their vocabularies.
It seems that Trump supporters are many and varied, and very loyal. To pretend that all these
shenanigans were needed to help elect him against such a faulty candidate as Hillary is pathetic
in the extreme. The terrible results, when we see how the new Administration is being gently helped
by the Senate including Democrats, will be bad for us all if their warlike statements lead to
facts. However, Obama's sending of 2800 tanks and 4000 troops to help Germany(!) and Poland against
"Russian aggression" right now, plus Hillary's promises, do not give a hopeful alternative scenario
for the "land of the free" or peace on earth.
Reply
W. R. Knight , January 12, 2017 at 11:06 am
The saddest part of this entire debacle is that the intelligence agencies, as well as main
stream media, the president and most members of Congress have destroyed their own credibility.
Lacking credibility, they cannot be believed; and when they cannot be believed, they cannot be
trusted; and a government that cannot be trusted is doomed.
J. D. , January 12, 2017 at 1:35 pm
Trump proved more feisty than expected at his first press conference as President-Elect, hitting
back at both Buzzfeed ('You're fake news" and CNN ("you're organization is terrible") And went
on to say that "If Putin likes Donald Trump, guess what, folks? That's called an asset, not a
liability," describing the urgency of cooperation in defeating terrorism. Lost in the shuffle
however was the source of the lies - British intelligence agencies.In fact, the NYTimes reported
Jan. 6 that the official report released last week by the US intelligence agencies, which accused
Putin of subverting the U.S. election, also came from British intelligence, which "raised an alarm
that Moscow had hacked into the Democratic National Committee's computer servers, and alerted
their American counterparts.Talk about foreign interference.
Get with the program! We are supposed to believe that all we have heard from and about the
CIA in this century was pure and innocent incompetence, and should therefore continue to put all
of our faith in their motives and methods.
Reply
The entire sordid mess needs to be dismantled brick by brick and rebuilt from the ground up.
Washington should be razed to the ground. It is beyond rescuing. it is beyond saving. It is rotten
from the foundations to the pinicle of the obilisk. The American People should declare war on
Washington DC and invade the place and clean house. Bring the Guillotine along with them and the
baskets for the heads.
The stench is overwhelming. It needs to be cleaned up. No it needs to be wiped from the face
of the earth. One of the founding fathers said that periodically, the tree of democracy had to
be watered with blood. That time has arrived.
Reply
Znam Svashta , January 12, 2017 at 11:22 am
George Orwell predicted our current mess in his classic, "1984". Interestingly, that was the
year that the neocons took over the Pentagon's Office of Risk Assessment, the State Department,
and the whore-house American media.
Reply
Lin Cleveland , January 12, 2017 at 11:50 am
What's going on here? I think Julian Assange may be on to something. ( my bold )
"Hillary Clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling
class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a D.C. insider , he is part of
the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of
other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an
existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilizing the pre-existing
central power network within D.C. It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly,
but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States:
change for the worse and change for the better."–Julian Assange
floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Thanks, Lin [for your 'bold.' Assange and Snowden are two voices "in the wilderness" always
worth listening to.
Reply
Jessejean , January 12, 2017 at 2:10 pm
Brilliant– as always. No matter how vilified JA is and no matter how much he's lied about,
he still is a force for reason and subversion, both of which we desparately need. Thanks for the
quote.
Reply
D5-5 , January 12, 2017 at 4:50 pm
Curious to me in the two-pronged attack on Trump (a. demonizing to delegitimize and replace
with Pence coming from the political establishment; b. hysterical fear of Trump coming from left
wing journalism sources including left-oriented alternative news sites) is why the hysteria in
the left continues so virulently. Assange's comment, to me, is balanced and sober. We don't know
what will happen out of Trump and his collection of "idiosyncratic personalities," we don't know
what will turn out "change for the worse and change for the better," and all the fear-mongering
from people like Robert Reich, appearing regularly in Truthdig, is entirely speculative. I then
question–would these same people on the left, that I once thought to be colleagues, prefer Hillary
Clinton and "consolidation of power in the existing ruling class"? This fracturing in what I had
thought was an intelligent left opposition is disturbing.
As an "old leftie" myself, I'd have to agree with Paul Craig Roberts that there IS no left
anymore. It was co-opted and bought by Big Money. Maybe we need to forget about "left" and "right"
and operate according to our own minds rather tha taking our cues from apologists for the establishment
like Robert Reich. But it sounds like you're already doing that.
Reply
Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 5:10 pm
Change that will undoubtedly benefit the privileged in a big way.
I don't give a crap about if Trump had prostitutes. That's between he and his wife. What I
do care about is if there are Trump financial threads to Russia and if his team had illegal meetings
with Moscow before the election. There are too many questions that need to be answered.
Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating
his opponents. Those are facts.
Why won't he release his tax returns? It could only mean he is hiding something.
What benefit does the world intelligence community gain in smearing a president elect? Is it
financial? idealogical? Power? Are they not tied and beholdened more to the entrenched financial
hierarchies then to the ever changing political landscape?
What advantage did this operative from British intelligence gain from compiling this info?
Money, fame, a 2nd home in Portugal?
How does anyone watching that press conference not come away with the chilly realization that
our president-elect is psychologically impaired? My god you don't have to be a trained psychologist
to see the guy has some serious mental health issues.
Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:54 pm
"He's a vicious killer " – this is a music for the Kagans' clan
Reply
JayHobeSound , January 13, 2017 at 4:10 am
"What advantage did this operative from British intelligence gain from compiling this info?"
Reportedly he asked his neighbours to feed his cats and he went into hiding. Bizarre.
'Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating
his opponents. Those are facts.'
Facts? I'm pretty familiar with Putin's career and I've seen nothing to suggest that Putin is
a killer at all.
Can you provide links to evidence? Not just links to other people making assertions without evidence,
please.
Reply
Truth First , January 13, 2017 at 6:20 pm
"Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating
his opponents. Those are facts."
You talking about Trump or Putin? In any case has Russia or Putin killed as many people as America
or Obama. The "facts" say no, not even close.
Reply
stinky rafsanjani , January 16, 2017 at 9:36 am
vicious killer? since when is that a bad thing? jinkies, obama of nobel fame
sends missiles and drones around the planet, bombing and killing for fun and
profit. why, he even orders the assassination of citizens of his own country,
without trial even. meanwhile, putin has, umm look! a squirrel!
James van Oosterom , January 16, 2017 at 11:45 am
Nobody said it was a bad thing. You're inferring things. Stick to squirrels . Ah yes, the door .
Reply
Andreas Wirsén , January 12, 2017 at 11:54 am
A "new phase" in Intelligence meddling with presidential candidates, yes – but only in how
openly they stand behind it as the source. Campaigns to scandalize unwanted primary challengers
have been alleged before. Senator Gary Hart, for one, has said in interviews he believes he was
caught in a honey trap, which cost him his candidacy.
floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm
Gary Hart, a potentially strong contender, was also [like Trump] not up to Deep State's standards
in Russophobia.
Reply
LongGoneJohn , January 12, 2017 at 12:04 pm
Didn't Trump just acknowledge that attacks on cyber US infrastructure including the DNC takes
place, in a general way? That is what his statement read and to me that does not sound like "Trump
acknowledges Russian DNC hack" at all.
So is it me, or ?
floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:12 pm
No, LGJ, it's not just you who can read through MSMB[ullsh t.]
Reply
Michael Morrissey , January 12, 2017 at 12:05 pm
If Trump & Co. accept "the intelligence community's assessment that the Russian government
hacked the emails," they are only saying that, as is common knowledge, everybody hacks everybody.
This is not, as Parry says, an acceptance of the intelligence "assessment" that Putin or Russian
hackers released the emails, or even got them. Assange and Murray have said unequivocally that
the source was inside the DNC, which means it cannot have been the Russians.
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Assange and Murray have said unequivocally that the source was inside the DNC, which means
it cannot have been the Russians.
Assange and Murray might be right, and they might not. There is a term being tossed around
– "cutout". Just because an intermediary claims to be a DNC leaker doesn't mean he actually was
such.
Under the circumstances I just don't care. Now if the Russians or Chinese or Ugandans or anybody
else had done more than facilitate the release of true information useful to voters, I'd be agitated
myself. Not that I'd expect anybody else to be. US votes have been hacked ever since the no-verify
touchscreen devices were first introduced, and nobody in authority has given a hoot about it.
Jessejean , January 12, 2017 at 2:18 pm
Zachary–you are so right. It drives me crazy that Bush got away with stealing the voting system
and all the Damn Dems care about is using it themselves. And now it drives me crazy that the Clintonistas
took down Bernie and are getting away with it. With that cat's paw Obusha hanging around to "work"
on rebuilding the DNC, we'll never see democracy again.
Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 6:52 am
We must indeed Dump the Dems. We need a progressive party.
There is a strong progressive majority everywhere which is being deliberately fragmented by
the Dems. In the US, Clinton supporters must unify not only with the critics of Dem warmongering
for Israel and KSA, but also with the Trumpers who want economic security in a rapacious oligarchic
state. Clinton supporters will have to admit their mistake and abandon the Dems as a scam of oligarchy
serving only as a backstop for the Repubs.
The solution is for a third party to align moderate progressives (national health care, no
wars of choice, income security) with parts of the traditional right (fundamentalists, flag-wavers,
make America great) leaving out only the extreme right (wars, discrimination, big business imperialism),
use individual funding, and rely upon broad platform appeal to marginalize the Dems as the third
party.
RMDC , January 13, 2017 at 9:28 am
Sam F. I agree with you but you have to stop using the term "progressive." The Clinton faction
of the demo party owns that term. It arose with John Podesta's Center for American Progress. Podesta
is the ideologue of contemporary progressivism. It has nothing to do with the Progressive movement
of the early 20th century.
The right term is Sander's term: Democratic Socialism. I know socialism is a problematic term,
too, but at least it is now claimed by the right people.
Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 2:20 pm
RMDC: Do you think "Progressive" can be brought back to its original meaning, or given a better
one, despite people falsely claiming to be progressive? Sanders' term might be incorporated into
that. It would be nice to deny the fakers the use of it.
Truth First , January 13, 2017 at 6:23 pm
"we'll never see democracy again."
Humm? When did we last see that "democracy" thing?
Reply
Bill Cash , January 12, 2017 at 12:08 pm
Trump could end all this by releasing his tax returns but he won't do it. I believe the intelligence
community had fears that once inaugurated, Trump would squash the whole thing. The Russian connection
is the only theory that connects all the dots. I'm waiting t see what happens with Assange. Will
he suddenly be able to go to Sweden?
As far as Trump's behavior, don't forget he was accused of raping a 13 year old girl but the woman
had to withdraw the suit because her life was threatened.
Why is your post such a strong reminder of Pizzagate?
Reply
Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:48 pm
Wont make any difference what t he does. He's an outsider. There's no escape except trying
& convicting the traitors running obama.
Reply
Wm. Boyce , January 12, 2017 at 12:14 pm
Very interesting column. I guess Mr. Trump is getting a lesson in who really runs things around
here.
Reply
Patricia Victour , January 12, 2017 at 12:22 pm
Unless Trump killed a prostitute on film, how could whatever is on the alleged video be any
worse than the pussy-grabbing debacle and all the other accusations of sexual predation? I don't
think you can embarrass Trump. He would just brush it off, and his base would probably think he
was a super stud.
Wm. Boyce , January 12, 2017 at 12:52 pm
Oh, I don't know, they could well have much worse stuff to leak, given Mr. Trump's complete
lack of control of his desires.
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:59 pm
I collected a lot of "stuff" on Trump from the internet in the past year, and was surprised
to see virtually none of it used against him. My best guess is that Hillary & Co. didn't think
it was necessary against their carefully selected "easiest" opponent. That "stuff" is still available,
and might well be used to buttress wilder and unverifiable claims.
col from oz , January 12, 2017 at 7:49 pm
Yesterday on anther site i wrote how Hillary was complicit in a very serious charge.
Please watch video titles, where is Eric braverman on you tube . I have watched some and most
of the material gives you the reality of what is occurring. A example is this. A fact is Gaddafi
wanted to have some kind of gold backed Dina money policy. Fact. So Libya had a lot of gold maybe
hundreds of tons. Where is it now. Did the "invaders' get it with their usual cut out Libyan man?
In the spirit of trying to make a better world i put this up, it seems political unbiased however
it shows the Clinton as they are?
"Libya's Qadhafi (African Union 2009 Chair) conceived and financed a plan to unify the sovereign
States of Africa with one gold currency (United States of Africa). In 2004, a pan-African Parliament
(53 nations) laid plans for the African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.
"African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment
for oil/gas Qaddafi had done more than organize an African monetary coup. He had demonstrated
that financial independence could be achieved. His greatest infrastructure project, the Great
Man-made River, was turning arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya; and the $33 billion project
was being funded interest-free without foreign debt, through Libya's own state-owned bank.
That could explain why this critical piece of infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only
bombed the pipeline but finished off the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes necessary
to repair it."
Speaking of "leaks", isn't the specific accusation in this case that Trump paid a prostitute
to "take a leak" on the bed where he believed the Obamas had spent the night? (So I guess it was
the prostitute that had "worse stuff to leak"!)
Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 8:58 pm
And while no one at Trump's press conference mentioned the specifics, Trump stated, "Does anyone
really believe that story? I'm also very much of a germaphobe, by the way, believe me."
The Saker writes in "The Neocon's Declaration of War Against Trump":
"After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be
called a declaration of war against Donald Trump. [ ] All of the above further confirms to me
what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House (I write
'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority
should be to ruthlessly crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state"
(which very much includes the media) who have now declared war on him. I am sorry to say that,
but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed. [ ]
As I predicted it before the election, the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their
history. We are entering extraordinarily dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war
between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump, the Neocon total
war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon
controlled Congress impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially
in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas). At the risk of sounding over the top, I will
say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in danger almost
regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about
his potential as a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted
for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the Washington-based plutocracy and restore what
they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat against
Trump, I predict that these millions of Americans will turn to violence to protect what they see
as their way of life
If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President à la Hillary or McCain gives the
order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see
what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their
own people. That is the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give
the order to crack down on the population the police, security and military services might simply
refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a Cold War
cliché) this can also happen in the USA."
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:54 pm
If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President à la Hillary or McCain gives
the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could
see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot
at their own people.
At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly
militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people".
I suspect that's why a great many of them joined up in the first place. Finally, carefully chosen
drone operators thousands or tens of thousands of miles away won't have the slightest problem
slaughtering evildoers. That's what they do all the time in their regular jobs.
Brad Owen , January 12, 2017 at 3:44 pm
Don't forget veterans, millions of them. When THEY stepped up to the North Dakota pipeline,
security forces backed off. Backwards' described scenario could be our "1991" moment to break
free and break the Deep State, and reinstating Glass-Steagall would break their Imperial paymasters
in The City and The Street. A new World could suddenly come about, faster than even the USSR/Warsaw
Pact disappeared.
Reply
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:14 pm
At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly
militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people".
Police departments all over the U.S. and other nations have a long history of acting as goon
squads and occasional firing squads for their local establishments. Lots of examples in labor
histories.
Reply
Peter Loeb , January 13, 2017 at 8:23 am
KILLING OUR OWN PEOPLE .
Special thanks to Zachary Smith.
In the US it's called "heroism", patriotism" and the rest. But if we are
inconvenienced to kill our own people, we can kill other peoples'
people. Gigantic weapons deals to Saudi Arabia and Israel
are proof of that.
By the way, did anyone happen to notice in the NDAA (Defense Authorization
Act) the increase of funds to rebels in another country whose goal is to
defeat the Syrian Government?
-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
PS For those who object to our killing our own people in the US join
Black Lives Matter.
Reply
Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 2:53 am
At the very least, the US should get rid of this prolonged waiting period between the elections
and actual assuming power by the president-elect. It was meant to facilitate the orderly transition
of power, but as we see now it is serving just the opposite goals. I cannot believe Obama is so
keen on hurting Trump he is ready to badly hurt his own country as well.
Reply
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:37 pm
Whether this move was meant to soften up Trump
The motive I see is to "soften" him up for his impeachment. Given Trump's temperament, it could
be a winning strategy for the people who prefer President Pence. In my barely informed opinion,
that would include a majority of both parties in both houses of the US congress.
Joe Tedesky , January 12, 2017 at 1:41 pm
Read section 4 of the 25th amendment .
"Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written
declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."
I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence. Although Donald Trump may
give one some consternation to his being a qualified person to sit in the Oval Office, Mike Pence
may bring down the house with his religious leanings inside of his political philosophy. Either
way we Americans are in for a most interesting time of it in our country's brief history. We should
all probably prepare ourselves for the worst, and hope that the best will happen.
Zachary wasn't Mike Pense your governor, or do I have you in the wrong state?
Realist , January 12, 2017 at 4:27 pm
Fascinating and disturbing at the same time. That section was surely MEANT to apply to the
president's health and physical capacity to do the job. However, a declaration by the VP (supported
only by a simple majority of the cabinet or the congress) "that the President is unable to discharge
the powers and duties of his office" can be based in an insurrection, a coup, or simply the erosion
of political capital. Gerald Ford could have argued that Richard Nixon no longer had the support
to govern (which is what Nixon himself conceded as the basis for his resignation). It basically
gives the VP and whatever insurgents he can muster the ability to quickly overthrow the sitting
president without the inconvenience of an impeachment and trial in the Senate. It could be the
Maidan without the messy blood all over the pavement. How wonderful.
Very resourceful of you in looking that up, Joe. I would never have imagined the seeds for
a coup existed right in the constitution.
Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:16 am
I have a saying: For the people in law-enforcement, law is a fringe benefit. Those who control
law always use it as a tool. Have you ever heard of a coup which was not based on some law, even
if it was the one written post-festum by the coup plotters? In other words, a coup is never difficult
to justify by the winners.
I have no doubt that the coup that Joe describes is possible. But the issue for the coup plotters
has always been: what happens with all the Trump voters after such a coup, the millions of them?
Will they sit and just watch the destruction of their social contract?
To some extent such US coup dilemma is not dissimilar to the nuclear war dilemma: easy to start,
difficult to finish.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 10:53 am
KIza, nice to hear from you it's been awhile.
Read this link. Trump got 26.8% of the total citizenry to vote for him. In all honesty I haven't
seen any polls on how the American populace shakes out on these controversies such as this most
recent fake news story, but I would imagine that a clever beat down campaign would be able to
soften the blowback .but then again I agree with you to some extent, that by pushing Trump out
of office this would have to have some kind of consequence that would not be pretty.
Joe, in general I am trying to highlight that it is one thing to bamboozle sheeple with a talk
of democracy (which does not exist) and another to openly crush even this reassuring lie. I just
cannot see the end game of a US coup and Trump is but a minor obstacle if they want to start it.
Therefore, they really want to make a Trump a lame and controllable President, not to take
over. Maintaining a reassuring lie of democracy is a much more sophisticated and efficient control
mechanism than direct control. I may we wrong but I do believe that Trump is just being house
trained/broken by TPTB in front of our eyes.
You write: I have not seen any polls how American populace shakes out on these controversies.
My reading of the online beat is that the Trump voters are not swayed, whilst the Clinton voters
use the "controversy" as confirmation that they were right all along about Trump. But then Clinton
voters would receive a confirmation even from an oily rag thrown in their direction. In other
words, a mountain shook and a mouse was born – almost no change at all on either side.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:56 pm
KIza your comparing Trump's attackers to how the MH17 story was spun is right on.
Trump is an easy target since his nature is certainly different than that of the usual norm
of our politico class who are cookie cutter politicians on the whole. I'm disappointed by how
people such as Michael Moore are going out of their way attacking Trump, while they completely
ignore how corrupt and dishonest the Clinton's are.
I wouldn't go so far as to predict that Trump supporters won't rebel against his impeachment,
but there again I believe the Trump supporters would be out numbered due to an over aggressive
media who could sway the majority into believing we must get Trump out of office. Any other method
other than impeachment is to horrible to even contemplate, so let's hope that all of our concerns
turn to ashes, and that for the good or bad of it that Trump finishes out his first term in good
health.
Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 8:19 pm
Yes, Joe, those 26.8% of citizenry who voted for Trump are built into 75-76% of citizenry who
do not believe in the MSM any more and in the John Brennan's two kitchen sinks, that is, his two
top secret but leakable kompromat dossiers on Trump – the first one apparently from an MI6 agent
and the second one promoted by the BBC (source unknown yet).
But this is not about Clintons any more, this is about the owners of the Clintons training/braking
Trump to be like the Clintons. If they cannot have a Clinton as a President, they want to have
a President as Clinton. If kompromat does not work, maybe a billet will, their patience is limited.
Always enjoyable to exchange thoughts with you Joe.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 11:14 am
Realist, considering how our country's founders were a bunch of slave owners declaring how
all men are created equally well need I say more?
Words are just words, that is until lawyers interpret these legal words into a reality, which
doesn't always fit into our own personal definition of a certain word usage. You and I deal with
this stuff all the time. Whether it be a traffic ticket, or an ordinance summons, we read one
thing, and the judge administers another thing. Prisons are filled with people who swear with,
'yeah but' explanations which give these prisoners no relief what so ever so I do think these
crafty legislators could pull a fast one, and install Mike Pence into the White House. Let's you
and I hope that I'm the one out in left field with my 25th amendment comment, and that we won't
end up with a Christian whack job as our president.
Reply
Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Yeah, Pence was elected Governor of Indiana. But despite this state being one of the most conservative
in the nation, Pence was too "nutty" and "far-right" for Mississippi North, and would have surely
been defeated. Now the man is one heartbeat/one impeachment conviction from becoming President
of the United States.
Quote: "From his denial of climate change to his belief in creationism, Pence is the most
hard-right radical to ever appear on a national ticket. Just this week a federal court had to
block his atrocious bill barring Syrian refugees from his state because his reasoning that Syrians
scare him is discriminatory."
Quote: "it is a literal truth, Mr. Speaker, to say that I am in Congress today because of
Rush Limbaugh, and not because of some tangential impact on my career or his effect on the national
debate; but because in fact after my first run for Congress in 1988, it was the new national voice
emerging in 1989 across the heartland of Indiana of one Rush Hudson Limbaugh, III, that captured
my imagination.""
It's a fact we are very, very close to having a Rush 'druggie' Limpaugh clone as President.
In my opinion, Pence is Trump's worst mistake up till now. If they can't have Hillary, for the
neocons and neo-liberals and the Christian End-Timers there remains Worse-Than-Hillary Mike Pence.
Trump is a Trojan horse for a cabal of vicious zealots who have long craved an extremist
Christian theocracy, and Pence is one of its most prized warriors. With Republican control
of the House and Senate and the prospect of dramatically and decisively tilting the balance
of the Supreme Court to the far right, the incoming administration will have a real shot at
bringing the fire and brimstone of the second coming to Washington.
"The enemy, to them, is secularism. They want a God-led government. That's the only legitimate
government," contends Jeff Sharlet, author of two books on the radical religious right, including
"The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power." "So when they speak
of business, they're speaking not of something separate from God, but they're speaking of what,
in Mike Pence's circles, would be called biblical capitalism, the idea that this economic system
is God-ordained."
Zachary I looked forward to your reply, since you always have references to your level headed
comments .so thanks for getting back to me.
In my world I don't even like bringing up the word God, or religion, since I believe a government
should be governed in a truly secular way. Who I pray to, and who I pay taxes to, are two completely
different things. My devotion to God is a very private matter, and I don't need some politician
interpreting God's greatness to me in anyway. So with that if Mike Pense wants to preach the gospel
to me, then he should resign from public office and become a full fledged preacher and even then
I will not go to his mean spirited church. Amen.
Realist , January 13, 2017 at 3:13 pm
What a troubling coincidence that Hulu is releasing its production of "the Handmaid's Tale"
by Margaret Atwood this April, which tells the story of the United States government being taken
over by extreme Christian fundamentalists and the consequences, especially to women and religious
dissenters. Read the book by Atwood and you'll see where Isis/Daesh got many of their ideas on
punishment and control of the masses. The Spanish Inquisition was six hundred years ago, but its
urges lie just beneath the veneer of our civilised modern world. Human nature hasn't changed,
only technology has. I thought this country was in danger of playing out the novel during Dubya's
administration, as 9-11 was exactly the kind of pretext for such a takeover in the book's plot
narrative and the Islamic world was portrayed as the great global adversary just as many Americans
believe in the real world. Trump has never struck me as a religious man, certainly not a zealot,
but Pence, with a little help from the Deep State, he could bring this disturbing novel to life.
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:16 pm
I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence.
A very plausible and ominous possibility.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:53 am
Seriously Bill even taking into consideration how some like Glenn Beck along with Rick Santelli
ridiculed an early President Obama back in 2009, I can't recall a more hostile media such as the
likes of how this current day corporate media is going after Trump. True, that Donald Trump by
just being Donald Trump can be an outrageous person with his words and actions, but still I just
can't get over the 24/7 media coverage, and how most of it isn't good coverage at that. This leaves
me to wonder if we all are not being setup for something big.
With Trump's winning streak putting away a whole herd of Republican primary candidates, and
how he sent 'low energy Jeb' packing, and then to go on and beat Hillary by his winning the Electoral
vote, he has had a great run. Now Donald Trump is battling not only the CIA/FBI/NSA, but he is
also bumping up against the congressional establishment. You know that McCain and Graham hate
him, but you can only bet that there is yet much more to come.
I'm sorry, but I don't sense there is much good to come with all of this. Thanks for the reply.
Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:57 am
Joe, I wonder if people missed the crazy similarity of the media campaign on the Trump "report"
and the one on MH17 ?
It appears that the TPTB have decided that if they generate enough media screaming, the lack
of proof does not matter any more.
Thus, I have become a strong proponent of the theory that whatever TPTB use outside, it is
only a practice for what they will use (more productively) inside. Drones anyone?
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:06 pm
KIza read my comment above, it pertains to what you brought up here.
All this turmoil and a dysfunctional Congress insures that nothing will change. The 1% loves
the status quo and will do anything to preserve it. Simply a smokescreen to keep US from dealing
with the corporate stranglehold on our government.
An Empire in decline.
Reply
Mike Flores , January 12, 2017 at 1:24 pm
While others laugh and make jokes, those of us who study Intel know that what just happened
with the leaked report was that the CIA has involved itself in U.S. politics, which it is forbidden
to do. How did the alliance between the Democratic Party and CIA begin? President Truman had allowed
200 Nazi Intel agents to come into the U.S. – including the men who created the blueprint for
the holocaust. Fearing Joe McCarthy would discover this, the CIA faked an Intel report and has
spent decades ever since lying about Joe. They actually confessed that his 2 lists were correct,
so they had to fool him with a fake dossier right before the Army hearings to shake his confidence.
Just search CIA AND THE POND and you will find on their website STUDIES IN INTELLIGENCE in the
last third of the article a full confession of framing Joe. This Facebook photo album THE REAL
JOSEPH McCARTHY is packed with forbidden information and can be viewed with this link by anyone
whether they are on FB or not. The alliance between the Democratic Party and CIA began by hiding
the people responsible for the holocaust. ( We should keep in mind Truman was KKK and forbade
the bombing of the train tracks to the death camps. The reason soldiers were not prepared for
the camps was that none had been told about them. Truman did not want our troops wasting time
on them). Interesting to note that absolutely no one has ever done an article or book on the impact
of the beliefs of the KKK on the 5 Democrats who were Presidents and Klansmen in the 20th century.
That would reveal the true nature of the Democratic Party.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153995222685986.1073741929.695490985&type=1&l=6dd1544b9d
Reply
Bill , January 12, 2017 at 1:37 pm
You don't mention President Obama, but it certainly seems likely that he's involved with this.
Who told Brennan and Clapper to go on TV to hype the intelligence reports and bad-mouth the next
President?
And were the leakers within the agencies acting on their own, or were they given orders from
above? There's a conspiracy going on and it's not my imagination.
Does the behavior rise to the level of treason or espionage?
Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:58 pm
Obama is a deadhead it is Brennan who instructs him. But who instructs Brennan?
Reply
Michael Morrissey , January 12, 2017 at 1:46 pm
As I have just learned from another reader's comment on another article, David Spring has augmented
his earlier article to an 85-page expose. Seems it was both a leak and a hack, but in neither
case by "the Russians."
I hope Ray McGovern and especially Wm Binney (and some Trump guy) read this and tell us what
they think!
I read it last night. Very much worth the couple of hours it took.
Reply
Realist , January 14, 2017 at 3:42 am
Well, that's THE comprehensive treatment in a nutshell. Everything documented chronologically.
Nothing important left out. Everything explained clearly and concisely. As organised as possible
and argued like a philosopher rather than a lawyer. The man has exceptional writing skills as
well as incredible computer knowledge. I'd like to see him question Clapper on the witness stand.
I hope that President Trump puts the Justice Department on this case to do a thorough investigation,
including potential indictments of spooks that perjured themselves and/or engaged in partisan
activities during the election and its ugly aftermath.
Reply
Oleg , January 12, 2017 at 2:47 pm
I am really surprised to no end. Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility
of your government? I do not really know what would happen in the US but in Russia there would
be riots. Any leader in Russia can govern only until he/she is trusted. Think Tsar Nicholas II,
Gorbachev I hope it will not get to this and some sanity will prevail in your country.
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:22 pm
Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government?
What credibility? Oleg, if you check the graphic at the top of the right sidebar on this page
you will see a reference to "I. F. Stone" who was one of this nation's great journalists of the
20th Century. He is noted for a dictum that says, "All governments lie." All governments certainly
include the U.S. government. You can get plenty of examples of lies with a little effort.
Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 11:12 pm
Lies out of government agencies and elected politicians are not the only problem. Hypocrisy
is another and has been part of American governance since the writing of the Declaration of Independence
by slave owners who said that all men are created equal with the right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. Now hypocrisy is rampant with politicians decrying alleged Russian intervention
is U.S. elections with the claim that it is wrong for any nation to interfere in the elections
of another nation. There is no nation on the planet that interferes in the governments of other
nations than the United States.
Reply
Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 3:02 am
Well, I certainly agree, but a government can still be largely trusted even if they resort
to some petty lies. As we all do too sometimes. But this this is not a petty thing, this is an
intentional attack on the whole institution of elections and democracy when they try to impeach
the elected President because some part of the establishment, not the people, dislike him. This
has a potential to really get very dangerous, and having any kind of uprisings (as was also mentioned
by other commenters above) in a country like the US is extremely dangerous for the whole world.
Reply
Abe , January 12, 2017 at 3:01 pm
Anyone in Washington seeking a golden shower from a couple of Russian prostitutes just has
to hop on one of those all-expenses-paid AIPAC junkets to Israel.
It's truly amazing how streams of urine help elevate one's anxiety about Iran's nuclear energy
program.
American journalist and activist Chris Hedges noted a key purpose of the declassified report
"Russia's Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election" from the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (ODNI):
"to justify the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization beyond Germany, a violation
of the promise Ronald Reagan made to the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev after the fall of the
Berlin Wall. Expanding NATO in Eastern Europe opened up an arms market for the war industry. It
made those businesses billions of dollars. New NATO members must buy Western arms that can be
integrated into the NATO arsenal. These sales, which are bleeding the strained budgets of countries
such as Poland, are predicated on potential hostilities with Russia. If Russia is not a threat,
the arms sales plummet. War is a racket."
Israeli arms sales to Europe more than doubled from $724 million in 2014 to $1.63 billion in
2015. http://jfjfp.com/?p=83806
Israel is the leading arms exporter in the world per capita (2014), and ranks 11th among the
top 20 exporters of military equipment and systems (2011-15).
75-80% of Israeli military exports are generated by just three companies - the state-owned
Rafael and Israel Aerospace Industries and the publicly traded Elbit Systems.
The largest categories of Israeli military exports are upgrading aircraft and aerospace systems
(14%), radar and electronic systems (12%), drones (11%), and intelligence and information systems
(10%).
In 2015, the Russian government described Israel's delivery of lethal weapons to Ukraine as
"counterproductive". There is a close arms trade and production co-operation between Israel and
Poland. Israeli companies have invested in building arms manufacturing facilities in Poland.
Reply
jfl , January 12, 2017 at 3:26 pm
However, in this case, it is not even known whether the Russians have any dirt on Trump.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something
in them which will hang him.
- said to have been said by redhat richelieu
what is known is that the nsa/cia/fbi have all the dirt on everyone, and that they use it
on the leaders of the eu, for instance.
if the only thing that comes out of this filthy little exercise is the death of the nsa/cia/fbi
– superpower america's superstazi – by executive fiat it will have been worth trump's election.
it's either that or another dead president. with pence playing lbj.
Reply
F. G. Sanford , January 12, 2017 at 3:41 pm
Funny how these "leaks" work, isn't it? If there really were an "insider" able to provide insight
on the deepest, darkest secrets that had been gathered by Russian intelligence, why would any
responsible intelligence agency completely destroy that asset only to expose a mundane fetish
like "golden showers"? But don't anybody dare leak "The Torture Report". Don't even consider leaking
information about war crimes, election fraud, financial crimes, murder, state corruption or state
sponsorship of terrorism.
Just my opinion, but here's how it really went. The "hack" scenario is a diversion from the
"leak" scenario. The "deep state" didn't really want Hillary. While she may superficially represent
their interests, the Clinton machine is too knowledgeable, too experienced and too selfish and
self-centered to predictably execute their programs. The Clintons have plenty of dirt on them.
But they had enough dirt on her to compromise her electability. They don't want Trump either,
but they can manufacture or dig up enough dirt to compromise his Presidency. Their first choice
was Jeb Bush. Their second choice is Mike Pence.
The DNC stuff was leaked by an insider, and the Podesta stuff was hacked by the NSA. The only
plausible alternative points to hacking attempts by the neo-Nazi Ukrainian hacking outfit "RuH8",
not the Russians.
A bunch of recent articles seek to analyze Barack Obama's legacy, personality and motivations.
That's all superfluous. The "real deal" has been well documented. His grandparents were CIA His
mother was CIA His first job after law school was with Banking international Corporation, a CIA
"front company". He was groomed and thoroughly vetted.
Nobody wants to hear the truth or look at real evidence. The circumstantial – though well documented
– evidence connecting Ted Cruz's father to the anti-Castro Cubans, the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald
is actually much more plausible and substantial than the evidence for "Russian hacking" of the
election, yet the general public has no problem dismissing that as a "conspiracy theory".
Between the two, Trump was perceived – mistakenly – as the lesser threat to the "deep state".
Just a guess, but we may be about to see all hell break loose.
It's about time some journalists and researchers started naming names and making lists. The
"New McCarthyism" uses lists to good advantage. It creates the perception of a vast subversive
network dedicated to destroying our "democracy". Until some names are named and fingers pointed,
the "deep state" and its intelligence community enforcement arm will continue to control the "democracy"
we don't really have. Blackmail is just one of their methods, and it's far from the worst.
My favorite quotes from the "Company Intelligence Report":
"However, he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow " (Is this a pun?)
"PUTIN angry with senior officials who "overpromised" on TRUMP and further heads likely to
roll as result. Foreign minister LAVROV may be next" (What Putin is going to make him change the
sheets in Trump's hotel room?)
" TRUMP has paid bribes and engaged in sexual activities there but key witnesses silenced and
evidence hard to obtain" (Were the "key" witnesses the same ones that claim Putin shot down MH-17?)
I think they dug up the script writers from "The Man from Uncle" and put them back to work.
This sounds like a Quinn Martin Production straight out of a Hollywood "B Movie".
Reply
Abe , January 12, 2017 at 10:24 pm
First Draft coalition "partner" BuzzFeed is leading the charge to make fake news, hybrid war
propaganda, and hoaxes "more shareable and more social"
FG, I'm not gay, but I always scroll down to find your comment. You are always looking into
the big picture, not the big illusion.
backwardsevolution , January 13, 2017 at 1:44 am
Gregory – I agree. His comments are always very good.
Reply
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Me three.
F. G. Sanford , January 13, 2017 at 6:41 pm
Thanks to all – sometimes I wonder if it's worth putting in my two cents. We're probably a
statistically insignificant group of readers on the world's stage, but I like to think at least
it's worth a try.
Reply
We must organize beyond cyberspace as this is a coup in action. CIA is greatest meddler of
all nations, coups and assassinations well documented. DC is the Aegean stable that must be cleaned,
a truly Herculean task and We the People have to get organized because this planet is imperiled.
Agree with Dan that whole sordid mess is beyond a swamp, a stinking pit and pitchforks are necessary!
Reply
LJ , January 12, 2017 at 4:36 pm
It's more doublethink logic from the Intelligence heads. It would require a tremendous leap
of faith for anyone with a brain to think that Russia/Putin/Lavrov would use this info, if it
existed at all, in public manner. To do so wouldn't help them achieve a goal and it would only
hurt Russia .. The tape would never become public even if it existed. That means this rumor is
clearly slander and was aimed at some political end. . Where is the smoking gun?, sorry. By the
way , Putin is friends with Bertoloscini , Sarkozy and other notorious womanizers and is known
to like women himself. This is not something he would do. He is not a mobster. This is puerile
and it is coming from the Democrats although the word is that George Bush initially hired the
guy, the former MI5 spy, who wrote the dossier/smear piece on Trump in the first place. . Hoover
would have kept it in shop and tried to leverage Trump himself.
Reply
Bernie , January 12, 2017 at 5:09 pm
There's an article at ABC News today about US tanks rolling into Poland. This reminds me of
Nazis rolling into Austria in 1938 and then Poland on Sept 1, 1941 to start WWII. "American soldiers
rolled into Poland on Thursday, fulfilling a dream some Poles have had since the fall of communism
in 1989 to have U.S. troops on their soil as a deterrent against Russia. Some people waved and
held up American flags as U.S. troops in tanks and other vehicles crossed into southwestern Poland
from Germany and headed toward the town of Zagan, where they will be based. "
Abe , January 12, 2017 at 6:32 pm
Like Poland, Ukraine is eager to express its devotion to the Reich, er, its "Euro-Atlantic
aspirations".
If only for the sake of NATO "cooperation" and "capacity building", Poland and Ukraine have
much to forgive and forget:
Of course, reports of Russian "euphoria" remain "unconfirmed".
Reply
Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 5:36 pm
Absurd. Who is this "they" everyone is talking about? How many are/is this 'they'? 5, 10 20?
Who is in control of 'they'? Who's in charge? The political elite? Do they have a club and do
they meet for bridge every Tuesday? Do they have a secret handshake? Are they all really Mason's?
This conspiracy holds no credibility because 'they' is just an 'idea'. That is all. Until someone
can give names of those who are responsible and running this political elite then its all storybook
conjecture. We should be more concerned with the obvious psychological dementia affecting the
president elect. He was a total looney tune in that press conference.
What you are saying with this list then, Wendi, it is not the political elites, intelligence
agencies or career politicians whoTrump continuously rails against as the cause for the end of
the American Empire. It is the financial hierarchies that Trump so desperately wants to be a part
of. Putin is obviously at the top of this list and Trump sees him as a way to become a player
in this club. That makes sense to me.
Reply
Dr. Ibrahim Soudy , January 12, 2017 at 6:14 pm
"THEY" are the people who control the MONEY. They are referred to as the BANKERS. Those are
a mafia that runs the political circus BEHIND the scene. The parties and elections are a diversion
to keep the idiots busy arguing with each other like the crazy fans of sports teams. The BANKERS
always make sure that the "idiots" are choosing between alternatives that ultimately BOW to the
BANKERS. Read for example the following:
– "All the President's Bankers" by Naomi Prins.
– "Memoirs" by David Rockefeller.
– "The Crisis of Democracy" a publication of the Tri-Lateral Commission on their website.
-Goldman, Wall Street and Financial Terrorism | The Inline image 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-whetten/goldman-wall-street-and-f_b.. .
Jun 19, 2010 · The most disturbing aspect of the recent Goldman Sachs lawsuit isn't just the legal
violations involved Goldman, Wall Street and Financial Terrorism.
-Goldman Sachs Are Financial Terrorists | FacebookInline image 1 http://www.facebook.com/Stop.Goldman
Goldman Sachs Are Financial Terrorists. 95,662 likes · 6,188 talking about this. Get the Honest
truth on the economy, this page sponsors no organization
Those will give you a good start ..Good Luck.
Reply
Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 7:29 am
Perhaps you do not mean the ridicule you suggest. The effects of economic aristocracy and political
conspiracy are of course not "storybook conjecture" but the combined deductions of experienced
observers. That would become conjecture only if specific persons were accused, which is seldom
done without evidence.
The demand for detailed evidence of an old-fashioned conspiracy to effect societal trends is
not valid. It becomes propaganda when used to attack the means by which we all deduce that events
are driven by cabals, or loose organizations of interested parties. While we are occasionally
surprised by the detailed evidence that emerges long after events, even that is incomplete and
not very relevant.
The means of ridicule shows its invalidity. There is no reason to speculate upon clubs, meetings,
or handshakes, as there is no need for such specific or antiquated organization. No modern organization
works that way, no one has suggested that, and no one here has reasoned from such nonsense, but
rather from well documented effects of cabals. So I hope that you merely overstated a wish for
more evidence.
Robert, Could it not be true that the real losers in the neocon push to extend the American
dominion might actually be the intelligence services? They have become so politicized in domestic
politics since the Iraq War build up (a la Rice, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Powell) that
they figure they can shape American public opinion to support any war, no matter how "unthreatening"
the enemy (say Russia) might actually be. Originally they were basically "fact collectors" (objective)
– at first from around the world, but since 9/11's Patriot Act, at home also. Then, they became
"interpreters and analyzers of motives" which takes a bit of a weed-gee board (subjective!) on
the part of the "experienced eye". When whatever these very effective (and appreciated) fact collectors
opine suddenly becomes gospel in their "estimates" (interpretation), we have lost the ability
to even influence the fate of our nation. Is this the country I grew up in? Or, has it been this
way since we were led so effectively to support World War I? Take care, HM
Reply
Thurgle , January 12, 2017 at 6:44 pm
The NYT skirts around the issue of who paid the huge sums for the research that produced the
story of Trump's alleged sexcapades in Moscow. They never say the funders are unknown, but instead
use devices like the passive tense to avoid saying. But it would be very interesting to know who
signed the checks. Apparently, there was a Republican funder during the primaries who stopped
payment when Trump prevailed, whereupon Fusion found a Clinton backer to write their checks. It
would be very interesting to know who these funders were and why the MSM seems so keen to avoid
saying.
Reply
BlackPete , January 12, 2017 at 7:46 pm
When it comes to cavorting with prostitutes JFK was the undisputed champion. Given the high
regard JFK is held in in some circles maybe Trump's alleged misbehaviour is a positive sign. Also,
now that Trump's behaviour has been made public isn't the Russian threat to expose him now worthless
and their alleged hold/influence gone?
Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 8:01 pm
Its not about the hookers. That's useless drivel. It's about the potential of illegal financial
dealings with Russia prior to the election. Just show the damn tax returns. What the hell is he
afraid of? What could possibly go wrong?
Are you keen on asking Clintons to reveal their financial dealings with Saudis, the sponsors
of 9/11?
How about the Kagans' clan being currently "supported" financially by Qatari?
And this is much more interesting than tax return: "The NYT skirts around the issue of who paid
the huge sums for the research that produced the story of Trump's alleged sexcapades in Moscow.
They never say the funders are unknown, but instead use devices like the passive tense to avoid
saying. But it would be very interesting to know who signed the checks. Apparently, there was
a Republican funder during the primaries who stopped payment when Trump prevailed, whereupon Fusion
found a Clinton backer to write their checks. It would be very interesting to know who these funders
were and why the MSM seems so keen to avoid saying."
It is controlling, deceptive, organized, bloody and does not give a "rat ass" about the needs
of any other human being on earth who does not belong to it!
It neither tolerates opposing views from anybody who does not belong to its members nor allows
the outsiders to organize . It is determined to be the lens through which everybody under its
control see the rest of the world; any conclusion drawn by the besieged population, based on what
it is forced to see, must conform to the "DEEP STATE" norms; otherwise, you are in deep trouble.
The POTUS or the Congress must toe lines dictated by the members of this organization, (the Deep
State). We are observing that no effort is being spared to see to it that President-Elect toes
the "DEEP STATE" line; it is deep and scary indeed!
Reply
John , January 12, 2017 at 8:40 pm
Russia is the half naked female in the magic show The real slight of hand is the relationship
with the American oligarch and china .wow !!! . talking about messing with the bottom line some
of you big brain folks will get this in 4 ..3 2 ..lol
Reply
There is little doubt that the obvious blackmail will never be covered in that light by main
stream media. To those of us who are historians or are natural skeptics or have actually lived
through those times, this is all fairly obvious. They are trying to put Donald Trump in a corner
so he can be controlled.
I suspect that is why Trump retained Steve Bannon for. Not just a house racist but someone
who can get down and dirty on those that dish up dirt on Trump. We'll have to see if it works.
Headlines: "Donald unleashes TwitterBomb on CIA". But he'll have to go on the internet since the
CIA owns the press in the USA.
He has two choices. Listen to the CIA and do their bidding which is the requirement to start
WWIII with Russia or resist and be smeared in the press. It's an uphill battle too. Unlike Silvio
Berlusconi or Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump does not actually own the press. That will make it
especially hard to do.
This thing is shaping up to be a geopolitical oil war. Rex and the Russians vs the Saudi/CIA
Team USA.
All I can say is fine America. Don't give a damn about privacy. Don't give a damn about anything.
But one of these days this massive spying ring gathering every shred of any and all traces of
your life and filing them away forever cannot be good. It will most certainly not end well.
When AI has us all pinned up against a wall threatening to out all of us if we do not do exactly
what it wants then what will we do?
We need some privacy laws. Also we need to throw the main stream media out with the trash.
It is pure evil. Back in the day, the press wouldn't run the stories about MLKs extramarital affairs
it recorded secretly. The press demanded to know the source of the B.S. and the FBI did not want
to tip their hand so the Mexican standoff led to the suicide letter which said "if you accept
the Nobel Prize, we will shame you and ruin you and you should consider preserving you legacy
by killing yourself instead. At least the MSM had some ethical standards and smelled a rat and
refused to run the stories. Imagine that. If MLK was alive today we and we still had segregation,
people and the media would fight to keep it! MLK would be a portrayed in the press as a philandering
bad guy. A sexual predator. The Civil Rights movement would end in a quagmire of gossip surrounding
its leader.
The Republicans have certainly had their fun with it too making Monica Lewinsky describe to
a court the distinctive features of the president's privates. I bet they were rolling in the aisles
when that happened. Now it's their turn. Will they defend Trump or will they hope that perhaps
Mike Pence would make a better leader.
All this tawdry B.S. really gets old fast. I could care less what people do in private as long
as nobody gets hurt.
One person abroad when asked what they thought about Bill Clinton's circumstances replied they
were confused since after all we were not electing the Pope. Amen. I feel the same way about Trump.
It's all B.S.
The problem is America can't remember what happened yesterday. We are collectively like terminal
Alzheimer patients. Two seconds after we see something, we forget it and are completely susceptible
to B.S.in two seconds after we forgot what just happened which ignores the facts which occurred
a mere two seconds earlier but we are none the wiser since we can't remember what happened more
than two seconds ago. That means there are a lot of opportunities each day to fool us.
What ever happened to the story about James Comey influencing the election? We just forgot
it. What ever happened to all of the other historically "likely suspects" thought to have been
likely suspects in vote rigging schemes. They are all absent and not presented as possible influencers
of the election by our CIA owned press. Instead we are presented with a fake narrative filled
with salacious gossip and naughty bits designed to turn public opinion into a weapon for further
increases in militarization and military spending while preserving foreign relationships which
benefit wealthy investors.
We need to wake up and start taking some strong medicine to ward off the Alzheimer disease
that is affecting us in order to put the daily snow job presented by the MSM and the CIA into
perspective. That perspective would include what just happened two seconds ago.
Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen since the medication would have to include administering
it to the MSM too.
The ability of the MSM to erase our collective memory and present us with a new fake narrative
on any given day should ring alarm bells that we are obviously vulnerable to being fooled.
We are being fooled. Every day. Time to start taking the meds.
Reply
Jurgen , January 12, 2017 at 10:01 pm
This is no "deep state" this is rather in-plain-sight US Government at work.
Trivial task:
1) Create a dense smoke screen by broadcasting on every single TV channel non-stop anti-Russian
and anti-Trump*** hysteria (they know it can't go wrong – they know Trump would try to reply to
every single fake thus making their task easier and the picture even more colorful)
2) Behind that smoke screen ship few thousands of US troops and tanks over to Poland and to those
parasitic micro quasi-states in Baltic and by doing that de-facto lay foundation for 4-5 new military
bases,
which (yet another NATO expansion) otherwise would not be approved and likely axed by Trump. But
now it went through s-m-o-u-ht-ly, like a butter. Highest class of the old Shell Game. Where CIA,
FBI and other spook shops are used as shills and the population of the US are total losers (everyone's
taxes will be used to pay for that yet another NATO expansion).
3) Behind the same smoke screen Obamacare has just been demolished late last night, congrats 20
million of poor folks!
*** Just wait till grainy videos surface showing some naked figures – one of them would be
vaguely resembling Trump.
That'd be no hard task for talented movie makers from either PSYOP or/and PAG (just remember their
masterpieces featuring Jessica Lynch and other ones featuring fat "Osama bin Laden"-looking dude).
Note: Authorization to create and finance state Propaganda apparatus, S.2943, was quietly passed
late Friday night Dec.23 behind the smoke screen of the same anti-Russian and anti-Trump hysteria,
thus what we are seeing now is perfectly lawful – propaganda machine at full throttle, who said
bureaucracy is slow(?)
As a non-citicen one has to wonder about the mind boggling machination the US politic is capable
of.
After WW2 the European countries looked upon the USA as the beacon of democratic values.
How bitter for the young generation to find, bit by bit, that behind the American facade lurked
a system
of smoke and mirrors. As ruthless as the very system they replaced in Europe. Slowly sugarcoating
their deep aims of domination. Under words like freedom,liberty and equality there is the underlying
unbelievable lust for money and with it power. From a human point of view, and the thinking person,
the politics and aims of the United States of America is an abomination for all the worlds people.
Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 3:27 am
I certainly agree with you, but also I am really saddened that this pattern is far from being
unique and repeats itself all over and over again. The power corrupts, and it is true for states
as well as for people. But the US are indeed a sad champion in hypocrisy. Their predecessors were
not as skilled in hiding their true intentions behind the screen of freedom and all other very
attractive values. This makes it especially hard to accept.
Reply
Brad Owen , January 13, 2017 at 5:08 am
You've fingered the wrong culprits, or rather indicted fellow victims. It's the same bloody,
titled ruling class and their managerial elites in business and banking from old-line European/British
families who've been playing their Imperial games and still are. THEY created the late 19th century
Synachist Movement for Empire (SME) that gave birth to Fascism and its' feverish twin NAZIism,really
just movements to update the workings of the old-fashioned European Empires. It's also the Cecil
Rhodes/Milner RoundTable Group that dove-tailed with SME machinations to update old Empires, campaigning
strenuously, through their managerial elites on Wall Street, to recapture their "rogue colony"
USA and bring it into the British version of Empire. Right at the moment of FDR's death (may have
been assassination), the tables were turned on us, with Churchill leading stupid Truman around
by the nose speaking of iron curtains and Red Scares and Cold Wars. FDR's intelligence community
was taken over by Anglophile RoundTable allies in the post-war 40s. Having helped win the battles,
we lost the War to the fascist/NAZI SME and RoundTable groups who never received so much as a
scratch from all the bombs and bullets. Have you seen the show Hunting Hitler? WWII never ended,
the methods of fighting just changed.
Brad Owen , January 13, 2017 at 5:44 am
P.S. Not only did WWII never end, just a change in fighting methods, BUT the SME/RoundTable
Groups managed to get the two most powerful allies turned against each other: USSR and USA, so
that we, together, couldn't focus on the REAL enemy; SME/RoundTable group of elites (which would
have happened under FDR in post-war. He would have been President until January 1949 if he hadn't
died/been killed, Stalin told FDRs son that "that Churchill gang killed him" been trying to do
the same to Stalin) and THIS is why Trumps' Russophilia is such a grave and real threat to our
Establishment.
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:13 pm
Brad you hit the nail on the head with your comments here .bravo!
Reply
John P , January 14, 2017 at 9:55 pm
Where on earth did you get this fable. Roosevelt had polio and needed a wheelchair, he was
a heavy smoker, had high blood pressure, angina followed by congestive heart failure all finalized
by a stoke. He had been weakening over a long period. This is all before the days of polonium
the USSR uses to kill its foes today.
Russia wasn't following the agreements drawn up in Yalta and fair free elections were not provided
in Poland and many Poles who fought for the allies in the war felt betrayed. The Soviets went
their own way, so were we to tell the Poles, tough.
Allied convoys, mainly British, at great cost in ships and men, supplied the Russians with war
supplies. They faced U-boats and heavily armed German battle-cruisers in freezing arctic waters.
After the war Germany got assistance in rebuilding, but the British were held to paying off debts
for US build liberty ships used to replace ships lost on the Atlantic convoys. I had an uncle
who's ship was sunk and very luckily, after much time in a life boat, was picked up. Many Americans
sat back and watched until Pearl Harbour. The British had warned the Americans some time before,
that they had lost contact with one of the Japanese fleets they were following, and you can guess
the consequences.
Britain saw what was coming when Germany attacked Poland and declared war on Germany. We didn't
have much. My father was almost killed assisting surgeon in a Liverpool hospital and luckily had
to leave to go out in an ambulance. When he came back the OR was gone. Bombed out. Luckily on
another occasion, the day staff had been told to stay on duty with the night staff and the nursing
residence was flattened. We had rationing until 1950, and had to grow food in our small back garden,
sprouts, peas, cabbage. We had 6 chickens and a rooster, a source of much needed nutrition from
eggs. I remember my mother weeping terribly after telling the police she had lost her ration books.
As a young lad I went on a search and eventually found them in the folds of a chair. You may never
have had to live through something like that.
And if you think America is any better than others, read "What is America?" by Ronald Wright.
Learn about the Trail of Tears and traders knowingly giving natives blankets used by whites with
small-pox.
Brad Owen , January 15, 2017 at 6:47 am
You relate the manufactured cover story, thanks to the anglophile Intel community that took
over in post-war forties, and did their typical change of the narration, much like they do today
with the phony crap about Russian aggression. This kind of sh!t has been going on since the revolution,
as the wealthy and powerful Imperial Tories never left and never relented. I got this"fable" from
EIR and Tarpley.net. It makes more sense to me than the current fable we call history. Check it
out for yourself, it amounts to mountains of articles and essays. It took me years to piece it
all together and relay it adequately in brief paragraphs. Choose to believe there is no over-arching
Imperial ruling class inimical to the interests of commoners if you want. I refuse to be blind
to it anymore.
David F., N.A. , January 12, 2017 at 10:18 pm
What if the intelligence community wasn't choosing between HRC and Trump, but, in stead, between
HRC and Pence. So no matter who won, wouldn't this hedged election mean business as usual?
Sorry, HRC, but for this downward neoliberal/fascist spiral thingy to work, you lesser-of-2-evil
conservaDems are just going to have to learn to share with the equally-corrupt conservatives.
See ya in 4 (or maybe 8 (naw, 4)).
Hail to the de facto Chief. da dada da dada dada dada da.
Reply
Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:36 pm
You forgot to declare who is the drag queen in this matter?
Let's warn these evil psychopaths that a JFK OUTCOME IS OFF LIMITS.
That is the inference of your article.
By the way, Trump NEVER READ THE REPORT PRIVATELY. THERE WAS AN ORAL PRESENTATION, & CLAPPER
& Brennan took the CLASSIFIED documents back with them. Trump never read the 2 pg libel nor was
it discussed in the presentation.
Carl Rising-Moore , January 13, 2017 at 2:38 am
This is also reminiscent of Hoover and JFK. When JFK attended Hoover's office, he was handed
the President's file. JFK read some of the file while Hoover waited. When JFK stood up to leave,
Hoover told the President that the file remains with him. No wonder JFK and Bobby hated this dangerous
psychopath.
Reply
John P , January 12, 2017 at 11:43 pm
It's all slime, Americans let their political system fall into the trap of big money (lobbying
system and PACs) and neo-liberalism. I have no faith that Trump has the capabilities to be a good
president. His dialogue is simple, his temper easily aroused as are his feelings of hurt. He shows
little historical knowledge or political skills and speaks in a petty childish way. Who is going
to pay for the southern border wall ?! What is going to replace Obama's medical care programs,
more big business institutions ?! To me it looks like the Palestinians are on the Titanic run
by captain Trump and his son-in law, and only minutes to go. What real in depth policies has Trump
ever stated ?! Look out because Trump has a habit of passing on the bills be it cash, broken promises
or a road you never thought he would take.
And yes we need a calming down and discussion between the US, Russia and China, but I don't see
any hope in the line of folks Trump has chosen or Clinton. To me, Trump is like passenger on an
aircraft in which the pilot has expired and he is relying on others to tell him what to do because
he has no idea or understanding.
I think this and a world where jobs have been taken by microprocessors and robots, is a very dangerous
place and we don't need a blind narcissist leading the way. Sadly Bernie Sanders got burnt on
the stake.
Reply
Carl Rising-Moore , January 13, 2017 at 2:28 am
At times like this I miss the wise words of the late Chalmers Johnson. Chalmers was not encouraged
by the possibility of America stepping back from her efforts to control the entire world. He felt
the deep state was too committed to America's Full Spectrum Dominance. Is this the sloppy end
to the legacy of the Sole Super Power? Or, is this just the middle of the play before curtain
call?
When Russia came to the aid of Syria, I believed that we were entering the Multipolar World Order.
Hopefully that is still possible but better sooner than later before we enter the No World Order
of endless chaos. Does the American deep state really want to play Russian Roulette with live
nucs?
Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:16 pm
I wish Chalmers Johnson were still with us, and able to comment on our current events good
of you to bring his name up.
Reply
John P , January 15, 2017 at 7:01 pm
I'm sorry Brad. With your EIR's reference, the first story I saw concerned Obama-care connected
to some Nazi policies. Next they claim global warming is fake. The US was the only western nation
without a national health program. People die because they haven't the money to pay for drugs
or health care. The health of a labourer is more important to them that a rich bloke sitting at
a desk. And excuse me but back in the late 60s I studied astronomy besides my major, another science,
and even then learned that both CO2 and methane each trap the sun's energy and cause temperatures
to rise. That was long before global warming came to peoples attention. Sorry, your story is pure
fiction.
Also, Trump hasn't a clue what he's talking about as far as global warming is concerned. Take
a look at the temperatures in the far north. They have been warmer than ever while we down here
are having huge cycles of heat and cold and are experiencing the fury that those changes can induce.
Dieter Heymann , January 16, 2017 at 2:23 pm
As a scientist you ought to know that CO2 and methane do not trap the sun's energy but absorb
upward IR radiation from Earth part of which they radiate back towards Earth's surface part out
into space. The blanket I use on my bed at night does not trap the heat generated by me either.
If it did it might catch fire?
John P , January 16, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Dieter I was just trying to make it simple, not write an article for Nature. The point being
so many people don't believe that we are altering the earths climate through burning fossil fuels.
We take down our forests, and plants are a big reason we are here as they take in carbon dioxide,
utilize the suns energy through photosynthesis and create organic compounds thus setting the stage
for further developments. There is so much irrationality out there brought on by job losses through
technology, and this creates huge divisions within society and that can lead to awful consequences
as history has shown.
I not sure some would understand the true science behind it. The subject was a reliance on a web
site that promoted climate change denial and a mentioned link between Obamacare and Nazism. Is
that a firm foundation of reliance ?
John P , January 16, 2017 at 4:33 pm
Just to clarify, I said astronomy wasn't my major, it was microbiology and medical sciences.
I had an interest in star gazing and following the planets.
Reply
Jamie , January 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Many liberals fail to understand that Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and
international finance capital. Unlike the unwashed masses - these forces don't care if politician
has a 'D' or 'R' next to their name. It is how well they will serve capital.
"... During the election campaign Donald Trump argued for better relations with Russia. He wanted to engage in a common fight against the Islamic State and other terrorists. Hillary Clinton argued for a confrontational policy against Russia and a new cold war. The foreign policy establishment, the media and the CIA were solidly on Clinton's side. The people of the United States made their choice. It was Trump and his views of policies that were elected. ..."
"... After Trump had won the election, he advised his staff to set up a confidential track-2 communication channel with the Russian government. He rightfully did not trust the established official channels through the State Department and the CIA His incoming National Security Advisor Flynn and his foreign policy advisor Kushner worked on his behalf when they soughed contacts with Russian officials. Such diplomacy is by nature not acted out in public. ..."
"... The various formulations in those pieces are painting the discrete diplomatic contacts as something sinister and illegal ..."
"... The scandal is Clinton, the DNC BS and the murder of staffer Seth Rich. All this msm noise is simply mass denial and paid for smoke screens. Trump should have stepped forward and taken it head while he had the people's voice behind him. His retreat has undermined any credibility and momentum he may have had. ..."
"... The meta-narrative is that the "deep state" as personated by Comey actually hated Clinton, at least some segments do. Foreign policy of USA seems indeed to be infested by a cabal that spends considerable effort to tame anyone who comes to Oval Office. It is as if the most glorious pastime of our ruling class was fox hunting, something that offers only a faint pleasure to the outsiders, but each time there is a new lord, the dog pack spares no trick, being cute and friendly, or growling and nipping, whining and biting, until the glorious fox hunt runs again. ..."
"... the dnc/cia/clintons are up to their asses in the same trough, that's why they're making the 'patriotic' charges they are instead of airing the real grift and graft that they all engage in as part of their oligarchic bans. that chicken just might come to roost in their own hen houses as well, whereas with a 'clean' frame they can 'create' the charges, making sure that no one can validate or falsify them ... kill their victims via smoke inhalation, not burns. ..."
"... The anti-Russian campagn is so well globally broadcasted that it serves as a ***WARING*** to French, German or British politicians (+ probably everywhere else on the planet). The REDS is the RED line. Now as before and a little more. ..."
"... Yes, I agree with everything you said b. Trump is under constant, vicious, unrelenting attack from both sides, the question for me is why? What was planned to occur during a Clinton presidency that he has now, probably unknowingly, stalled? Was it war/war profiteering, was it the Climate Change 17 trillion dollar scam, has he somehow derailed the UN 2030 plan? ..."
"... They could have simply blocked everything and anything he advanced as they did with Carter, why the need to destroy him personally? I supported Bernie (clearly a mistake) and now I am flooded with anti Trump emails 24/7; I get about 20 a day. There is something we/I am missing, is it as simple as Clinton wanting to stay out of jail, is it Pizzagate, what drives this near blood lust to bring him down? ..."
"... For students of history, JFK set up alternate lines of communication with both the Soviet Union and Cuba in order to bypass the CIA, which Kennedy knew was continually trying to suck the US into their war against communism. Students of history remember what happened next. ..."
"... Trump is like an untrained circus animal - untrained that is by Anglo-Zionists. In contrast, and waiting in the wings is steely-eyed Pence, trained to psychopathic levels. Trump has no idea what he has got himself into. He is in a maze precisely because he has neither done the study nor has he been trained. How long did it take people on this site to work it out? In my case a hell of a long time plus two hundred or more books. ..."
"... First, one of Trump's best policy proposals was to cut funding for NATO and say to European countries, if you want this big Cold War-era military juggernaut, then why don't you pay for it? The argument against NATO is pretty clear - just as the Warsaw Pact was dissolved after the Cold War, so should have NATO been dissolved. If EU countries want a military cooperation agreement, fine, but why should the U.S. taxpayer pay for it? We have this massive infrastructure collapse problem that would be money better spent, that would do far more for the average American citizen. ..."
"... Trump just doesn't have the bureaucratic infighting skills, he's basically folded on everything the Borg State and the corporate media wanted on foreign policy, supporting Saudi Arabia, bringing in McMaster, bombing Syria, supporting the war on Yemen, etc. He's also loaded up his administration with just as many Goldman Sachs insiders as Hillary Clinton would have, and his energy and infrastructure plans are just idiotic, compared to countries like China and Germany - it's a giveaway to private financial interests, just like Bush and Obama did back in 2008. Trump is looking more like Boris Yeltsin every day, really. ..."
"... What does this Trumpet foreign policy amount to? The first real move was it seems to me that Tomahawk missile attack, 59 o-them, on the airfield outside Homs (April) as a riposte for one of those mythical 'chem' outrages. ..."
During the election campaign Donald Trump argued for better relations with Russia. He wanted to engage in a common fight against
the Islamic State and other terrorists. Hillary Clinton argued for a confrontational policy against Russia and a new cold war. The
foreign policy establishment, the media and the CIA were solidly on Clinton's side. The people of the United States made their choice.
It was Trump and his views of policies that were elected.
After Trump had won the election, he advised his staff to set up a confidential track-2 communication channel with the Russian
government. He rightfully did not trust the established official channels through the State Department and the CIA His incoming National
Security Advisor Flynn and his foreign policy advisor Kushner worked on his behalf when they soughed contacts with Russian officials.
Such diplomacy is by nature not acted out in public.
But now the U.S. people are told by their media that it is a scandal, A SCANDAL , that President Trump's advisors pursue the policies
the candidate Trump had argued for. Today's headlines:
The various formulations in those pieces are painting the discrete diplomatic contacts as something sinister and illegal
NBC News reported on Thursday that Kushner was under scrutiny by the FBI, in the first sign that the investigation, which began
last July, has reached the president's inner circle.
...
FBI investigators are examining whether Russians suggested to Kushner or other Trump aides that relaxing economic sanctions would
allow Russian banks to offer financing to people with ties to Trump, said the current U.S. law enforcement official.
But paragraphs down from that:
While the FBI is investigating Kushner's contacts with Russia, he is not currently a target of that investigation , the current
law enforcement official said.
...
There may not have been anything improper about the contacts , the current law enforcement official stressed.
The WaPo author has at least the honesty to note:
It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials.
As an aside the Washington Post leakers reveal that U.S. intelligence can listen to Russian diplomatic communication between the
embassy in Washington and Moscow. This is a criminal breach of a "sources and methods" secrets that should be punished.
The scandal here are not various contacts of Trump advisors with Russian and other country's diplomats. The scandal is the undermining
of the constitutional prerogative
of the elected President of the United State to set foreign policy:
Under the Constitution, the President serves as head of state and head of government. [..] As head of government, he formulates
foreign policy, supervises its implementation and attempts to obtain the resources to support it. He also organizes and directs
the departments and agencies that play a part in the foreign policy process. Along with the Vice President, he is the only government
official elected nationally. This places him in a unique position to identify, express and pursue the "national interests" of
the U.S.
The scandal here is not Trump and are not his advisors' contacts with Russian officials. The scandal are the leaks by "officials"
about confidential diplomacy, the sham FBI "investigations" and the general undemocratic hostility and resistance of the foreign
policy establishment, the security services and the media towards the president's chosen policies. This is completely independent
of whether one likes those policies or not.
The scandal is Clinton, the DNC BS and the murder of staffer Seth Rich. All this msm noise is simply mass denial and paid
for smoke screens. Trump should have stepped forward and taken it head while he had the people's voice behind him. His retreat
has undermined any credibility and momentum he may have had.
Trump seems to be taking a different approach. The neo-cons/globalists/powers that be have blocked him from carrying out policies
openly. His policy now seems to be fucking up every geo-political move they make or want make. What has come of his flashbangs
and war talk so far since he appeared to go full neo-con. In each case the opposite to what appeared his neo-con intention, with
a result closer to his campaign position.
US arms sales to the Saudi's? If its tanks and armoured vehicles, the Houthi's will turn them to scrap. From what I have read,
Saudi's have more tanks and planes than they can ever use anyway. If it's smaller stuff that can be past on to the jihadists,
that's a different matter. He seems to be milking the Saudi's dry and setting them up for a fall.
Iran. What will come of that? More war talk and flash bangs?
Obama wanted some sort of detente with Iran. Why? Because Obama was a benign forgiving sort of fellow? Still some time to go
to be sure of where Trump is headed, but at the moment, he is messing up the Obama/Clinton/Neo-con plans
It is a bit hasty to declare Trumpistas as innocent victims. The sinister narrative is that Russian equivalent of NSA got hold
of valuable secrets of Democratic party and passed them to Republicans in exchange for favorable policies.
The benign narrative
that b favors is that Democrats have fallen victim of non-Russian related leaks and Trump wanted to change the policy in respect
to Russia because he has a different perception of American national interests on those issues as he duly announced during his
election campaign. Once elected, he had legal and moral mandate to discuss some stuff with Russians to "hit the ground running
in January".
The benign narrative is spoiled by the existence of the actual leaks, moreover, if Trump wanted to exercise his moral prerogative,
he should send Flynn, an associate that actually could figure out what he would be talking about with Russians, to the embassy
to be duly photographed on the way there by reporters, giving them some soundbites about the purpose. He did not need any secret
channels at this point.
The meta-narrative is that the "deep state" as personated by Comey actually hated Clinton, at least some segments do. Foreign
policy of USA seems indeed to be infested by a cabal that spends considerable effort to tame anyone who comes to Oval Office.
It is as if the most glorious pastime of our ruling class was fox hunting, something that offers only a faint pleasure to the
outsiders, but each time there is a new lord, the dog pack spares no trick, being cute and friendly, or growling and nipping,
whining and biting, until the glorious fox hunt runs again.
Trump is like the new guy who does not really hate hunting, to the contrary, but have never ridden a horse and given a choice,
he would simply stick to golf and pussy grabbing. Could we modify the hunt with dog packs so I could use a golf cart, say, we
could hunt badgers? (Iran? I am stretching the analogy to the limit.) You can see how the entire hunting establishment is barfing.
Only the fox hunt lends itself to cooperation and elegance, shooting pheasants purchased by the dozen is a good for shooting practice
but it will never, ever replace the pursuit of proper game for the nobles.
The same week that Trump released a budget proposal that calls for $1.7 trillion in social cuts, including the virtual destruction
of Medicaid, the government health program for the poor, the Democrats and allied media outlets have continued to focus on
his alleged collusion with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This, in turn, is based on claims that Putin hacked Democratic
Party emails during the election campaign and gave them to WikiLeaks to publish in order to embarrass Hillary Clinton and tip
the election to Trump-claims that have not been backed up by any substantive evidence.
Also last December, Kushner met with Sergei Gorkov, the head of the Russian bank Vnesheconombank, which has been under US
sanctions since 2014. That meeting points to the completely corrupt character of the Trump presidency, which has brought the
criminality that pervades Wall Street into the White House. Trump officials described the meeting as routine and inconsequential,
but the bank described it as a "negotiation" about "promising business lines and sectors."
ABC News reported that the meeting was part of talks "with a number of potential investors" about the development of a skyscraper
on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan owned by the Kushner family real estate firm, Kushner Companies.
when the rump talks about getting along with the russians, this is what he has in mind. oligarchic theft oligarch-to-oligarch
'globalist' money laundering. and wouldn't it be nice to have secure communications to conduct such discussions over.
the dnc/cia/clintons are up to their asses in the same trough, that's why they're making the 'patriotic' charges they are
instead of airing the real grift and graft that they all engage in as part of their oligarchic bans. that chicken just might come
to roost in their own hen houses as well, whereas with a 'clean' frame they can 'create' the charges, making sure that no one
can validate or falsify them ... kill their victims via smoke inhalation, not burns.
Anti-Russian hysteria reaches levels that I would not guess that are possible. How a software businessman can get so deranged
that he manhandles a reporter by grabbing him by the neck, slamming on the ground and punching on the face?
Richard Nephew, the former principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the state department, told the Guardian
that "there is definitely a question here but my initial reaction is that this is not something to freak out about".
He added: "Index funds [Gianforte has 0.1% of his holding in index funds based on Russian stocks] are usually just
like mutual funds, excluded from consideration from a sanctions perspective because the ownership stake per person is incredibly
small."
But he noted that it did raise some concerns from "a Russia policy perspective" as a conflict of interest because "betting
on Russia's economy is problematic".
The Dems created the Trump-Russia "ties", "alliance", or what-not, as a multi-purpose tool.
> of course merely to keep the neo-cons-libs and **payers** on board, and persevere in the present scheme, with rah rah USA,
Israel, KSA, Qatar (..), Muslim brothers and sisters and djhadists, against Assad, Iran, and Russia, in a multi-facetted proxy
war. 1
> it provides an excuse for the Clinton loss - the whole mess, her unpopularity, lousy campaign, is blamed on Russian machinations
via or with Trump, convenient scape-goats.
> DNC/Dem turpitude and crime and convolutions (fixing the primaries againt Sanders, e-mail scandal, Podesta mails, leaks,
ex. Seth Rich - blowing up now, and much more!) are left in the shade, and/or become so confused that the 'base' just blames Russia,
all can be attributed to the hidden evil influence of a powerful enemy.
> the accusation are so broad, amorphous (don't point to any specific actions, sayings, so one can ratisser large -
scan widely) anything will fly. This is the wedge a large section of the PTB has settled on to impeach Trump. A vicious underground
war is taking place. Trump is defending himself, but not well, perhaps it is impossible, idk. The landscape was evident from the
moment he chose Pence as VP (2) then he let Flynn go - collaboration and appeasement in Bizness and Politics don't work in the
same way.
1. Heh "Social democrats" showing their true heart-heart for apartheid, fundamentalist oppressive religion, cabals of despotic
cruel unelected royals, hyper control of women, murder of blacks, war and bombs on millions of innocent ppl, and banksters scammers!
2. From far off, surprising. A renewal and change agenda would have mandated a less marked figure - perhaps just a neutral
place-holder, or a little-known appeal candidate (white youngish woman for ex. but not Palin!), or a total break-away thingie.
Trump either did not understand this or could not effect it. Idk.
The anti-Russian campagn is so well globally broadcasted that it serves as a ***WARING*** to French, German or British politicians
(+ probably everywhere else on the planet). The REDS is the RED line. Now as before and a little more.
Yes, I agree with everything you said b. Trump is under constant, vicious, unrelenting attack from both sides, the question
for me is why? What was planned to occur during a Clinton presidency that he has now, probably unknowingly, stalled? Was it war/war
profiteering, was it the Climate Change 17 trillion dollar scam, has he somehow derailed the UN 2030 plan?
They could have simply blocked everything and anything he advanced as they did with Carter, why the need to destroy him
personally? I supported Bernie (clearly a mistake) and now I am flooded with anti Trump emails 24/7; I get about 20 a day. There
is something we/I am missing, is it as simple as Clinton wanting to stay out of jail, is it Pizzagate, what drives this near blood
lust to bring him down?
For students of history, JFK set up alternate lines of communication with both the Soviet Union and Cuba in order to bypass
the CIA, which Kennedy knew was continually trying to suck the US into their war against communism. Students of history remember
what happened next.
Trump is seen as racist, sexist and fascist in some quarters. Israel isn't too crazy about him either. But it could just be a
small group running the anti-Trump campaign. Sending out emails is a job. The idea is to impeach him or get him to resign. I'm
not sure how much average Americans care.
Wow, if having a secret back channel to discuss foreign policy is a crime, then let HENRY KISSINGER be the first to be put on
trial, convicted and executed!
Whoa, what about those jobs Trump promised? Making nice w/Russia will un-employ thousands of overpaid intelligence personnel and
thousands of SA jihadis!
Russia is a mostly white, mostly Christian nation, a natural ally of Occupied America, unless our Overlord is PO about the
rapprochement.
The opening of secret back channels is almost routine with US presidents. Obama initiated contacts with Iran in the winter of
2011-12. The BostonGlobe published one of many stories on this. In Feb 2012 there was even a more informal envoy who went to Tehran
(the person, I forget the details, was a private citizen and friend of Obama from his Chicago days) to sound out possibilities
for the nuclear deal.
Khalid at #2 is dismally naive. We are not shilling for Trump, what we see is that the highly secretive US intelligence agencies
are attempting to take over US foreign policy to thwart Trump's efforts at detente with Russia, which is the one thing he campaigned
on and is trying to achieve. Maybe Khalid wants the US to go to war with Russia but we don't.
.... what drives this near blood lust to bring him down? frances about Trump at 13.
DT is an interloper, a maverick, a time-bomb. He has made enough threats, has enough dirt to bring down the central Gvmt. US
apparatus. (E.g. Finance/Banking, Clinton Foundation, Pizzagate, no doubt more, other.)
He is a threat to the whole status quo, the fake duolopy (Dem-Rep), but is using this power in a Mafia-like landscape (as are
the others), in true corrupt fashion, for personal advantage, which includes acclamation and admiration. In that sense he is part
of the system and playing within it. That is one of the reasons he is gingerly tolerated, and hasn't been 'suicided' (yet.) Still,
someone 'breaking in' like Trump did (the Republicans in lame disarray, the media running their own agenda, the Dems asleep at
the wheel, nobody in charge, everyone just on their personal profit gig) is terrifying, and shows up the extreme vulnerability
of the instituted powers, which is unbearable to all of them, so they loathe, despise, Trump with a supreme passion.
Why does the U.S. Borg State hate Russia and China and Iran, but loves Israel and Saudi Arabia and Ukraine?
1) The American Empire program is suffering a collapse in global influence in the 21st century, much as the British and French
Empire programs collapsed after in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. GW Bush's Iraq invasion, and Obama's Libya-Syria regime change
program, will almost certainly be viewed by historians as the last gasps of the Empire program (comparable to Britain in Iran
and the Suez Canal issue in Egypt in the 1950s, the independence of Pakistan and India, France's loss of Indochina and Algeria,
etc.). This is what the Borg State is trying to reverse. Their only allies in this are pet client states like Saudi Arabia, Israel
and the Ukraine - all with serious human rights and lack-of-democracy issues. Borg State efforts in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and
Syria have all been major debacles.
2) Russia in particular is upsetting the Borg ever since Putin rejected the Boris Yeltsin-era programs (takover of the Russian
oil industry by U.S. and British banks in particular) and imprisoned America's favorite Russian plutocrat, Mikhail Khordokovsky
and booted out Berevozsky and Gusinsky (the latter two being key players in electing Boris Yeltsin to a second term in 1996, if
you want to talk about foreign influence in elections!). China is behaving similarly, running its own Central Asian economic
integration plan through to Iran (note: not a military invasion) and exerting influence over the South China Sea (which is
rather like its Gulf of Mexico, isn't it? Don't see any Chinese naval vessels doing "freedom of navigation there". Ditto for Russia's
Black Sea.
There's another big issue for the Borg State: loss of domestic political control. Their agenda for the election was a puppet
show featuring Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush; they almost lost complete control (which would have meant a Bernie Sanders vs. Donald
Trump general election). They managed to put Clinton in the general election by nefarious means, with corporate media support
(as in Russia in 1996), but then Trump won - with once-Democratic states like Ohio, etc. that were hit hardest by neoliberal trade
policies giving him the edge.
But Trump is quickly demonstrating that he's can be just as much a tool of Borg State interests as Hillary Clinton was - his
love-in with the Saudis being exhibit A, followed by typical bowing to the Israeli government, along with loading his administration
up with the very Wall Street insiders who've spent decades screwing over the very people who supported him in Ohio and other industrial
wastelands whose jobs have been shipped to Mexico, China and India so fat cats can get fatter. Trump looks to be playing the same
games Hillary Clinton did with the Saudis; something like $100 million from the Saudis & UAE has been deposited in a Ivanka Trump-related
foundation/endowment. This has been GCC Arab policy for decades - bribe U.S. politicians for support; bailing out GW Bush, dumping
millions into foundations linked to the Clintons and McCain, buying billions in U.S. arms - it's the only reason they're still
in power, otherwise Saudi Arabia would have seen a democratic revolution and the House of Saud's 15,000 members would be getting
drunk in Europe and Switzerland after being evicted.
Meanwhile, under this media circus spilling over the U.S. (which is best just ignored), we have the U.S. military in Mosul
coordinating with Iraqi Army efforts to kick out ISIS, the Iraqis also coordinated with Iranian-backed Shia militias. No reporting
on this in the U.S. media but here's a good clip from France24: Exclusive: Inside the Battle for Mosul, May 26
All you can really say about American corporate media is that it's almost useless as an information source on global events.
It's consolidate Borg State propaganda and until some politician dares to bring anti-trust legislation aimed at breaking up the
media cartels into hundreds of independent outlets, none of that will change.
toivo, it was Sultan Qaboos the Sultan of Oman who was the instrumental go between for obama and iran. I agree with khalid "Trump
is a huckster, a salesman and a bully. He is not a friend of anybody but himself" and fully agree with everything b has written.
i think, more than anything, the establishment dems controlling the dem party have determined the best way to take down trump
and ensure they will win the next election plus distract Americans from their culpability for hoisting the most undesirable candidate
imaginable into the election process is -- this cold war replay of demonizing Russia.
As far as Trump and Iran, this from a few days ago should raise questions about whether Trump has come around to the Clinton view
on foreign policy agendas:
The U.S. Treasury is reviewing licenses for Boeing Co and Airbus to sell aircraft to Iran, department head Steven Mnuchin said
on Wednesday, telling lawmakers he would increase sanctions pressure on Iran, Syria and North Korea.
Thr National Security establishment doesn't like having people in who they feel they can't control or who aren't "made". It's
not enough to be a billionaire or a former ex-FBI informant. Obama was establishment. Vetted. Clintons ditto. Bushes are of the
royal blood. Someone like Perot: have to make them look craaazy! Really they are all crazy and these are clique fights. Don't
believe Trump and his gang won't in the end irradiate anyone that stands in the way of their dominance. The tip-off is the torture.
They're all depraved. The UN Committee Against Torture states the US tortures today, not just under Bush/Cheney. Press and politicians
and lazy Americans yawn. So what? Meanwhile blacks shot down in greater numbers. Refugees and Muslims cower in fear. The superannuated
elderly are slotted for the kind scythe of medical neglect. But Lockheed and Raytheon and General Dynamics and their ilk dine
in splendor. The journalists of the people at the NYT, Washington Post, etc. make out at $200 grand per year. Dancing, dancing
on the good ship USS NukeApocalyse.
Trump is like an untrained circus animal - untrained that is by Anglo-Zionists. In contrast, and waiting in the wings is
steely-eyed Pence, trained to psychopathic levels. Trump has no idea what he has got himself into. He is in a maze precisely because
he has neither done the study nor has he been trained. How long did it take people on this site to work it out? In my case a hell
of a long time plus two hundred or more books.
Trump seems to function on some primordial level of hunches and we should be grateful for some of them. Almost daily news of
new equipment or troops being sent to the Baltics/Poland etc. that we saw in the Obama days seems to have died down. He does not
like Poroshenko's Ukraine. The fight is in Washington where it is safe, at least for the time being. Yes, he sold the Saudis a
bunch of new stuff but you felt he was happy because business-wise he had them over a barrel (pun excused I hope). I can just
see him give out the order, "Send 'em a load of junk."
Trump is an elite spanner in the works. Due to his enormous ego he was bound to make it difficult for the political elites
because he's an elite.
@Khalid, I think B. has some good points you're ignoring.
First, one of Trump's best policy proposals was to cut funding for NATO and say to European countries, if you want this
big Cold War-era military juggernaut, then why don't you pay for it? The argument against NATO is pretty clear - just as the Warsaw
Pact was dissolved after the Cold War, so should have NATO been dissolved. If EU countries want a military cooperation agreement,
fine, but why should the U.S. taxpayer pay for it? We have this massive infrastructure collapse problem that would be money better
spent, that would do far more for the average American citizen.
But, this was something that drove the unelected Borg State bureaucrats crazy and was one of the main reasons for their
attacks on Trump. They want to go back to Cold War era thinking - and Russia is not a military threat, it's just that they're
the dominant gas supplier to Europe and they've thwarted the rise of ISIS in Syria and prevented a Libya-like outcome in Syria.
Russia's main problem is that it hasn't diversified its economy away from fossil fuels, particularly its exports, unlike China.
But the Russian government does recognize this (see Putin's most recent "State of the Union" speech).
Trump just doesn't have the bureaucratic infighting skills, he's basically folded on everything the Borg State and the
corporate media wanted on foreign policy, supporting Saudi Arabia, bringing in McMaster, bombing Syria, supporting the war on
Yemen, etc. He's also loaded up his administration with just as many Goldman Sachs insiders as Hillary Clinton would have, and
his energy and infrastructure plans are just idiotic, compared to countries like China and Germany - it's a giveaway to private
financial interests, just like Bush and Obama did back in 2008. Trump is looking more like Boris Yeltsin every day, really.
nonsense factory @ 26. Agree with the gist of what you wrote ...
Still overall there is a kind of mystery. What does this Trumpet foreign policy amount to? The first real move was it seems
to me that Tomahawk missile attack, 59 o-them, on the airfield outside Homs (April) as a riposte for one of those mythical 'chem'
outrages. (Talk about sanctions etc. doesn't count.) The Russians were warned, and it seems like there were not more than
10 deaths and little or no damage (didn't follow this closely)? The MSM and PTB came out in praise, saying Good Boy! as
to a dog or cute toddler when they finally get with the agenda and jump through a hoop.
Then DT runs off to the only ones who hit the like button 50 times, KSA and Isr. (Plus off to the Pope for balance?) Previous
he attempts some links with China while adopting a sorta belligerent attitude - and making a huge sturm und drang about
N Korea.
All of which - I mean all of it - amounts to very little in terms of foreign policy actions. It is as if he was pretending
to don a role, or is playing a double game. What is in question here of course is not DT's personal aims/understanding but the
actions of the USA. I feel I am missing some parts of a puzzle. But maybe I am over-analyzing the 'death and convulsions of Empire'
situation (point 1, very important and mostly denied.)
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the
CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked
and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media
should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition
party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the
media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that
Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director,
Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat
an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington
parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its
cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that
the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White
House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of
Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week,
MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in
the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should
be "investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in
that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor
Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill
, in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group
of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much
of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly
with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything.
. . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett
inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At
this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter
. . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position
by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment
of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received
as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that
if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with
that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday
print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited
by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this
headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure
Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.
"... "Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said. "Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue." ..."
Sen. John McCain admitted Wednesday that he gave the FBI a dossier detailing claims of a Russian blackmail plot against President-elect
Donald Trump.
The Arizona lawmaker, a longtime Trump critic, made the public statement as questions piled up about his alleged role in spreading
an unverified and error-riddled document that Trump has denounced as "a complete and total fabrication."
"Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said.
"Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director
of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue."
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
by Andrew C. McCarthy August 7, 2017 5:26 PM @AndrewCMcCarthy The scope of the
special counsel's investigation remains unlimited, despite the deputy attorney general's claim
that it's not a 'fishing expedition.' To what should be the surprise of no one, Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein has tried to defend his conferral of boundless jurisdiction to special
counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of President Donald Trump. But the conferral is
indefensible because Rosenstein failed to adhere to regulations that require a clear statement
of the basis for a criminal investigation. This failure is not cured by the DAG's stubborn
insistence that there really are limits to Mueller's jurisdiction . . . just not limits he can
talk about. Interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, the DAG claimed that there is a
definite "scope of the investigation" because he and Mueller have agreed on one. Yet, he
wouldn't say what that scope is -- only that if Mueller wants to probe "something that's
outside that scope," he needs Rosenstein's "permission to expand his investigation." Pressed by
Wallace, Rosenstein was reduced to tautology: Mueller is not engaged in a "fishing expedition,"
you see, because "the special counsel is subject to the rules and regulations of the Department
of Justice, and we don't engage in fishing expeditions." I see. This, er, explanation put me in
mind of a defense lawyer I once encountered while prosecuting a terrorism case. The defendant,
he explained, could not be a terrorist because the lawyer's firm did not represent terrorists.
Pretty compelling, no? Unfortunately, Wallace did not engage the DAG on the fundamental flaw in
his appointment of Mueller. Rosenstein maintains that DOJ officials (presumably including
himself) are subject to "the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice." Yet, those
rules and regulations expressly mandate that there be a basis for a criminal investigation or
prosecution before a special counsel is appointed. The appropriate scope of the investigation
is not supposed to be something to which the DAG and the special counsel agree in
off-the-record conversations. It is governed by what is supposed to be the specified predicate
for a criminal investigation without which there should be no special-counsel appointment in
the first place. (function($){ var swapArticleBodyPullAd = function() { if
($('body').hasClass('node-type-articles')) { var $pullAd = $('.story-container
.pullad').addClass('mobile-position'); if (window.matchMedia("(min-width: 640px)").matches) {
if ($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd .addClass('desktop-position')
.insertBefore('.article-ad-desktop-position'); } } else { if
($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd .addClass('mobile-position')
.insertBefore('.article-ad-mobile-position'); } } } }; $(window).on('resize', function(){
swapArticleBodyPullAd(); }).resize(); })(jQuery); Don't take my word for it. The regulation, 28
CFR Sec. 600.1, states that the Justice Department may appoint a special counsel when it is
"determine[d] that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted," and that the
Justice Department's handling of "that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter"
in the normal course "would present a conflict of interest for the Department" (emphasis
added). The regulation does not permit the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel in
order to determine whether there is a basis for a criminal investigation. To the contrary, the
basis for a criminal investigation must pre-exist the appointment. It is the criminal
investigation that triggers the special counsel, not the other way around. Rosenstein, instead,
appointed a special counsel and unleashed him to sniff around and see if he could come up with
a crime. It is specious to claim, as Rosenstein does, that his citation of the Russia
counterintelligence investigation is a sufficiently definite statement of the scope of the
investigation. As we have frequently pointed out, a counterintelligence investigation is not a
criminal investigation. There need be no suspicion of crime before a counterintelligence probe
is commenced. The purpose of the latter is to collect information about a foreign power, not to
investigate a suspected crime. As shown above, however, the need to probe a specific suspected
crime is, by regulation, the prerequisite for appointing a special counsel. The criminal
suspicions that gave rise to Watergate were not kept under wraps. Moreover, if citing the
Russia counterintelligence investigation were a sufficiently definite statement of Mueller's
"scope," Rosenstein and Mueller would not have had to agree on what the scope of the
investigation is -- as Rosenstein told Wallace they have done, privately. Which brings us (yet
again) to the regulation governing a special counsel's jurisdiction, 28 CFR 600.4. It states
that the Justice Department will provide the special counsel "with a specific factual statement
of the matter to be investigated." We know from the above-quoted reg (Sec. 600.1) that controls
special-counsel appointments that this "matter to be investigated" must involve a suspected
crime. Patently, the order by which Rosenstein appointed Mueller to conduct the Russia
counterintelligence investigation is not a specific factual statement of a transaction giving
rise to a suspected crime. Nor is Rosenstein relieved of the obligation to comply with the
regulation because Justice Department officials prefer not to talk about investigations
publicly. It bears remembering that we have arrived at this point largely because, on March 20,
2017, former FBI director James Comey publicly disclosed the existence of the investigation
into Russia's election-meddling. For good measure, Comey added that the investigation would
include scrutiny of Trump-campaign ties to, and coordination with, the Putin regime, as well as
an assessment of whether crimes were committed. Comey testified that he had been authorized by
the Justice Department to make this public announcement. How is it, then, that the Trump
Justice Department, against law-enforcement protocols, authorized that public discussion of the
investigation but now refuses to make disclosures regarding the investigation that are required
by regulation? The president is our government's most significant public official. An
investigation is corrosive of his capacity to carry out his responsibilities. It thus
compromises the public interest. We tolerate these debilitating challenges only if (a) there is
a good-faith basis to suspect the president may be guilty of criminal misconduct, (b) he is
made aware of what the basis for suspicion is so he can defend himself, and (c) the public is
informed so we can assess the jeopardy for ourselves. If a president is reasonably suspected of
a serious crime, he should by all means bear the burden of paralysis, and we should hold him
accountable -- whether that involves voting him out of, or otherwise seeking his removal from,
office. If he is not actually a criminal suspect, though, or if he is suspected of something
that is objectively trivial, he should not be under a cloud that gratuitously damages his
capacity to govern and our security. The criminal suspicions that gave rise to Watergate were
not kept under wraps. Nor were those that led to Iran-Contra, or the scandals involving
Whitewater/Lewinsky and Valerie Plame. In each instance, the president and the public
understood the basis for criminal investigation and prosecution; the government's capacity to
function was affected to a degree commensurate with the gravity of the allegations; and the
ability of special prosecutors to investigate was not compromised. Clarity about the
investigation, which is what the governing regulations call for, was in the public interest. To
suggest that invoking the Russia counterintelligence investigation gives Mueller a finite scope
from which he is unlikely to stray is to betray naïveté – or at least an
unfamiliarity with counterintelligence. The Russia counterintelligence probe is an
information-gathering inquiry into the Putin regime's election-meddling, premised on the
intelligence community's conclusion that Putin wanted Trump to win the presidency. Therefore,
to take just one example, any suspected misconduct of Trump's that could theoretically be known
to Putin and usable for blackmail purposes would be relevant. Such suspected misconduct might
have utterly nothing to do with the 2016 election, yet it could be highly pertinent to a
counterintelligence probe of Putin's 2016 election-meddling. Understand: I am not saying there
has been any such misconduct. I have no way of knowing. I am merely pointing out that there is
no merit in the claim that, by invoking Russia's 2016 election-meddling and suspicions of
Trump-campaign collusion in it, Rosenstein has effectively limited Mueller's scope to Trump
dealings with Russia in connection with the 2016 campaign. The regulations governing Mueller's
appointment as special counsel call for Rosenstein to specify the basis for a criminal
investigation, and thus limit Mueller to that specification. Rosenstein has not done that.
Despite the DAG's claims to the contrary, Mueller is thus free to conduct a fishing expedition.
Rosenstein has the authority to correct this error by superseding his statement of Mueller's
jurisdiction in a manner that complies with the regulations. For whatever reason, he has chosen
not to do that. READ MORE:Is Mueller's Grand Jury Impeachment Step One?Mueller's Grand Jury:
What It MeansTrump Has Himself, Not Sessions, to Blame for the Limitless Mueller Investigation
-- Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing
editor of National Review.
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450230/rod-rosenstein-mueller-investigation-claims-its-limited-dont-stand
The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies
if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
Notable quotes:
"... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
"... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
"... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel
debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate
those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely
clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.
Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most
articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy
theory, and has published in The Nation some of the
clearest
arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian
where he has been
writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of
New
York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald
Trump Win.
In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of
this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy
Scahill accurately described as "brutal".
The term Gish gallop
, named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a
fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in
rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the
opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the
Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a
deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by
Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.
In this part here , for
example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the
back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's
happening here:
Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or
the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most
recently when President Macron was elected ? -
Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ?
-
Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed
didn't happen?
Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?
Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just
claimed actually is not true?
Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive,
but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European
states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.
Maté: Where else?
Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was
crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and
former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the
time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing
thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does
the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was
different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public
space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a
matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.
Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently
presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world
prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot
of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's
plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no
Russian hack in Germany.
In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually
admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more
flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a
completely
false example .
That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the
fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that
Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté
just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite
obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.
The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim,
Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom
things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact
that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that
Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding
has.
jeremy scahill 0
@jeremyscahill
This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to
defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' -
YouTube
11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
Q 131 11597 C? 1,148
The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of
the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive
government it is, after which the following exchange took place:
Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir
Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the
topic of your book.
Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort
of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing
would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.
At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up
the show and promote Harding's book on his own.
You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy
it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a
cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate
conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of
trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.
The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many
suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for
there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their
conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as
Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain
zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the
appearance of a legitimate argument.
Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History4
days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right
nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard
Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is
to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western
intelligence agencies.
That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority -
Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read
my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin
is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long
history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around
of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when
it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know
about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be
involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not
explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he
death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian
were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
by Andrew C. McCarthy August 7, 2017 5:26 PM @AndrewCMcCarthy The scope of the
special counsel's investigation remains unlimited, despite the deputy attorney general's claim
that it's not a 'fishing expedition.' To what should be the surprise of no one, Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein has tried to defend his conferral of boundless jurisdiction to special
counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of President Donald Trump. But the conferral is
indefensible because Rosenstein failed to adhere to regulations that require a clear statement
of the basis for a criminal investigation. This failure is not cured by the DAG's stubborn
insistence that there really are limits to Mueller's jurisdiction . . . just not limits he can
talk about. Interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, the DAG claimed that there is a
definite "scope of the investigation" because he and Mueller have agreed on one. Yet, he
wouldn't say what that scope is -- only that if Mueller wants to probe "something that's
outside that scope," he needs Rosenstein's "permission to expand his investigation." Pressed by
Wallace, Rosenstein was reduced to tautology: Mueller is not engaged in a "fishing expedition,"
you see, because "the special counsel is subject to the rules and regulations of the Department
of Justice, and we don't engage in fishing expeditions." I see. This, er, explanation put me in
mind of a defense lawyer I once encountered while prosecuting a terrorism case. The defendant,
he explained, could not be a terrorist because the lawyer's firm did not represent terrorists.
Pretty compelling, no? Unfortunately, Wallace did not engage the DAG on the fundamental flaw in
his appointment of Mueller. Rosenstein maintains that DOJ officials (presumably including
himself) are subject to "the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice." Yet, those
rules and regulations expressly mandate that there be a basis for a criminal investigation or
prosecution before a special counsel is appointed. The appropriate scope of the investigation
is not supposed to be something to which the DAG and the special counsel agree in
off-the-record conversations. It is governed by what is supposed to be the specified predicate
for a criminal investigation without which there should be no special-counsel appointment in
the first place. (function($){ var swapArticleBodyPullAd = function() { if
($('body').hasClass('node-type-articles')) { var $pullAd = $('.story-container
.pullad').addClass('mobile-position'); if (window.matchMedia("(min-width: 640px)").matches) {
if ($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd .addClass('desktop-position')
.insertBefore('.article-ad-desktop-position'); } } else { if
($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd .addClass('mobile-position')
.insertBefore('.article-ad-mobile-position'); } } } }; $(window).on('resize', function(){
swapArticleBodyPullAd(); }).resize(); })(jQuery); Don't take my word for it. The regulation, 28
CFR Sec. 600.1, states that the Justice Department may appoint a special counsel when it is
"determine[d] that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted," and that the
Justice Department's handling of "that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter"
in the normal course "would present a conflict of interest for the Department" (emphasis
added). The regulation does not permit the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel in
order to determine whether there is a basis for a criminal investigation. To the contrary, the
basis for a criminal investigation must pre-exist the appointment. It is the criminal
investigation that triggers the special counsel, not the other way around. Rosenstein, instead,
appointed a special counsel and unleashed him to sniff around and see if he could come up with
a crime. It is specious to claim, as Rosenstein does, that his citation of the Russia
counterintelligence investigation is a sufficiently definite statement of the scope of the
investigation. As we have frequently pointed out, a counterintelligence investigation is not a
criminal investigation. There need be no suspicion of crime before a counterintelligence probe
is commenced. The purpose of the latter is to collect information about a foreign power, not to
investigate a suspected crime. As shown above, however, the need to probe a specific suspected
crime is, by regulation, the prerequisite for appointing a special counsel. The criminal
suspicions that gave rise to Watergate were not kept under wraps. Moreover, if citing the
Russia counterintelligence investigation were a sufficiently definite statement of Mueller's
"scope," Rosenstein and Mueller would not have had to agree on what the scope of the
investigation is -- as Rosenstein told Wallace they have done, privately. Which brings us (yet
again) to the regulation governing a special counsel's jurisdiction, 28 CFR 600.4. It states
that the Justice Department will provide the special counsel "with a specific factual statement
of the matter to be investigated." We know from the above-quoted reg (Sec. 600.1) that controls
special-counsel appointments that this "matter to be investigated" must involve a suspected
crime. Patently, the order by which Rosenstein appointed Mueller to conduct the Russia
counterintelligence investigation is not a specific factual statement of a transaction giving
rise to a suspected crime. Nor is Rosenstein relieved of the obligation to comply with the
regulation because Justice Department officials prefer not to talk about investigations
publicly. It bears remembering that we have arrived at this point largely because, on March 20,
2017, former FBI director James Comey publicly disclosed the existence of the investigation
into Russia's election-meddling. For good measure, Comey added that the investigation would
include scrutiny of Trump-campaign ties to, and coordination with, the Putin regime, as well as
an assessment of whether crimes were committed. Comey testified that he had been authorized by
the Justice Department to make this public announcement. How is it, then, that the Trump
Justice Department, against law-enforcement protocols, authorized that public discussion of the
investigation but now refuses to make disclosures regarding the investigation that are required
by regulation? The president is our government's most significant public official. An
investigation is corrosive of his capacity to carry out his responsibilities. It thus
compromises the public interest. We tolerate these debilitating challenges only if (a) there is
a good-faith basis to suspect the president may be guilty of criminal misconduct, (b) he is
made aware of what the basis for suspicion is so he can defend himself, and (c) the public is
informed so we can assess the jeopardy for ourselves. If a president is reasonably suspected of
a serious crime, he should by all means bear the burden of paralysis, and we should hold him
accountable -- whether that involves voting him out of, or otherwise seeking his removal from,
office. If he is not actually a criminal suspect, though, or if he is suspected of something
that is objectively trivial, he should not be under a cloud that gratuitously damages his
capacity to govern and our security. The criminal suspicions that gave rise to Watergate were
not kept under wraps. Nor were those that led to Iran-Contra, or the scandals involving
Whitewater/Lewinsky and Valerie Plame. In each instance, the president and the public
understood the basis for criminal investigation and prosecution; the government's capacity to
function was affected to a degree commensurate with the gravity of the allegations; and the
ability of special prosecutors to investigate was not compromised. Clarity about the
investigation, which is what the governing regulations call for, was in the public interest. To
suggest that invoking the Russia counterintelligence investigation gives Mueller a finite scope
from which he is unlikely to stray is to betray naïveté – or at least an
unfamiliarity with counterintelligence. The Russia counterintelligence probe is an
information-gathering inquiry into the Putin regime's election-meddling, premised on the
intelligence community's conclusion that Putin wanted Trump to win the presidency. Therefore,
to take just one example, any suspected misconduct of Trump's that could theoretically be known
to Putin and usable for blackmail purposes would be relevant. Such suspected misconduct might
have utterly nothing to do with the 2016 election, yet it could be highly pertinent to a
counterintelligence probe of Putin's 2016 election-meddling. Understand: I am not saying there
has been any such misconduct. I have no way of knowing. I am merely pointing out that there is
no merit in the claim that, by invoking Russia's 2016 election-meddling and suspicions of
Trump-campaign collusion in it, Rosenstein has effectively limited Mueller's scope to Trump
dealings with Russia in connection with the 2016 campaign. The regulations governing Mueller's
appointment as special counsel call for Rosenstein to specify the basis for a criminal
investigation, and thus limit Mueller to that specification. Rosenstein has not done that.
Despite the DAG's claims to the contrary, Mueller is thus free to conduct a fishing expedition.
Rosenstein has the authority to correct this error by superseding his statement of Mueller's
jurisdiction in a manner that complies with the regulations. For whatever reason, he has chosen
not to do that. READ MORE:Is Mueller's Grand Jury Impeachment Step One?Mueller's Grand Jury:
What It MeansTrump Has Himself, Not Sessions, to Blame for the Limitless Mueller Investigation
-- Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing
editor of National Review.
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450230/rod-rosenstein-mueller-investigation-claims-its-limited-dont-stand
At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many as 16 top
FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present.
Notable quotes:
"... This was one of several such meetings held in seclusion among key FBI leaders since Trump was elected president, FBI sources confirm. At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many as 16 top FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present. ..."
"... If you are among the millions of Americans who have pondered in recent months whether the Obama-era "Deep State" intelligence apparatus and FBI are working for or against Trump, this is the first definitive proof that the country's once-premiere law enforcement agency has gone rogue. ..."
"... Embattled FBI Director James Comey did not attend these private meetings of his interoffice revolutionaries, sources said, though he was aware of the gatherings yet did not discourage them or McCabe's inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric. Some FBI agents have questioned if the Anti-Trump attitude shared in the secret sit downs with the bureau's top brass is now the official platform of the FBI. The FBI, many agents quietly agree, has proven no friend to the newly minted US president. And they are beginning to understand why. ..."
"... Democratic factions controlled by a Hillary Clinton insider paid the deputy director of the FBI's wife almost $700,000 in campaign funds before McCabe, who was supervising Clinton's investigation, lobbied against charging her criminally, according to records and interviews obtained by True Pundit. ..."
"... According to one FBI insider, the McAuliffe-generated campaign funds may have ultimately bought Clinton some strategic breathing room ..."
"... "McCabe was one of the few people who backed Comey's decision not to refer Hillary Clinton to the Justice Department for indictment," a FBI source said of the July 2016 decision not to refer Clinton for criminal charges for violating email and document safeguards for classified and Top Secret national security intelligence. "McCabe and Comey are both lawyers. They aren't street agents. They're more political. We wanted her (Clinton) indicted. They did not." ..."
"... McAuliffe's contributions to Dr. McCabe's campaign match the exact time frame of the FBI's parallel Clinton investigation. No contributions were made prior to the FBI's probe of Clinton. McCabe was overseeing personnel decisions, including assigning agents to the Clinton investigation team, at the FBI's Washington D.C.'s field office when his wife began her 2015 campaign. His wife lost the election after spending an estimated $1.8 million on the senate run. Three months later, Comey promoted McCabe to FBI Deputy Director in February 2016. The promotion helped fill a very large void created by the retirement of John Giacalone, who was the supervisor of the bureau's National Security Branch and also the FBI brains and genesis behind the Clinton email and private server investigation. Since the inception of the case, Giacalone had spearheaded the Clinton investigation, and helped hand select top agents who were highly skilled but also discreet. Many of those agents were concerned when Giacalone abruptly resigned in the middle of the investigation. ..."
"... FBI insiders said Giacalone used the term "sideways" to describe the direction the Clinton probe had taken in the bureau. Giacalone lamented privately he no longer had confidence in the direction the investigation was headed. ..."
"... in the midst of the Clinton investigation, Giacalone handed the bureau his retirement papers in February 2016. ..."
"... The day after Giacalone's departure, Comey tapped McCabe to help oversee the ongoing Clinton case and personally serve "as the eyes and ears" for Comey, sources confirmed. Since early July 2016, Comey has come under intense fire from critics and the majority of Americans who believe he granted Clinton a get-out-of-jail-free card by refusing to refer the case to the Justice Department for a probable slam-dunk indictment on at least one of potential dozens of criminal charges. ..."
"... Now Comey, McCabe and their rogue FBI Sanhedrin face a new dilemma: Colleagues who have blown the whistle on the partisan agency, specifically how personal and political philosophies have crept into the FBI and commandeered the bureau's powerful reach and resources to tamper with law-abiding White House personnel, including the president. That's called public corruption, a crime the FBI is tasked with investigating ..."
Mere days before Gen. Michael Flynn was sacked as national security advisor, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe gathered more than
a dozen of his top FBI disciples to plot how to ruin Flynn's aspiring political career and manufacture evidence to derail President
Donald Trump, according to FBI sources.
McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official, emphatically declared at the invite-only gathering with raised voice: "Fuck Flynn
and then we Fuck Trump," according to direct sources. Many of his top lieutenants applauded and cheered such rhetoric. A scattered
few did not.
This was one of several such meetings held in seclusion among key FBI leaders since Trump was elected president, FBI sources
confirm. At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many as
16 top FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present.
If you are among the millions of Americans who have pondered in recent months whether the Obama-era "Deep State" intelligence
apparatus and FBI are working for or against Trump, this is the first definitive proof that the country's once-premiere law enforcement
agency has gone rogue.
The non-elected hierarchy that steer the FBI have declared war on President Trump and his White House inner circle. Make no mistake.
Days after the McCabe tirade, Flynn was forced to resign. That was no coincidence. This is how secret coups waged by the top law
enforcement personnel in the top law enforcement agency in any country operate. Efficiently. If the FBI wants you silenced or out
of a job, you'll be unemployed. Ask Michael Flynn and countless others.
Part of the plan hatched at that gathering was to make sure Flynn's wiretapped conversations were leaked to the media, FBI and
intelligence sources said. They were. Did the FBI leak this classified intelligence to the news media? Isn't that a question President
Trump and Congress should be posing? If nothing else, McCabe and his FBI secret council are certainly now suspects of who possibly
leaked the intelligence. Seems that a number of polygraphs should be in order.
Embattled FBI Director James Comey did not attend these private meetings of his interoffice revolutionaries, sources said,
though he was aware of the gatherings yet did not discourage them or McCabe's inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric. Some FBI agents
have questioned if the Anti-Trump attitude shared in the secret sit downs with the bureau's top brass is now the official platform
of the FBI. The FBI, many agents quietly agree, has proven no friend to the newly minted US president. And they are beginning to
understand why.
As far as waging political coups go: So far, so good. The FBI's secret plan to ruin Flynn worked. And fast. Flynn is long gone.
Now they can focus on ruining President Trump. After all, Isn't that the role of the FBI? Tampering with the president of the United
States and his inner circle, neither of whom have broken any laws?
It turns out, however, the FBI isn't very good at the spy game. McCabe's dictatorial tone ruffled a number of agents at FBI headquarters
who still believe the mission of the bureau is not to wage clandestine warfare against the sitting president and his administration.
McCabe and Comey did not respond to requests for comment. Flynn could not be reached for comment.
This isn't McCabe's first rodeo in the cross-hairs of controversy at the FBI where he is outranked only by Comey. In fact, McCabe
garnered problematic headlines during the 2016 presidential election.
Democratic factions controlled by a Hillary Clinton insider paid the deputy director of the FBI's wife almost $700,000 in
campaign funds before McCabe, who was supervising Clinton's investigation, lobbied against charging her criminally, according to
records and interviews obtained by True Pundit.
Dr. Jill McCabe was a Virginia state senate candidate in 2015. Longtime Clinton family consigliere and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe,
sent her approximately $675,000 to fund the Democrat hopeful's campaign coffers. Dr. McCabe, a physician, is married to the FBI deputy
director. Mrs. McCabe is a registered Democrat. FBI agents who work with McCabe say he and his wife were both staunch Hillary Clinton
supporters.
According to one FBI insider, the McAuliffe-generated campaign funds may have ultimately bought Clinton some strategic breathing
room.
"McCabe was one of the few people who backed Comey's decision not to refer Hillary Clinton to the Justice Department for indictment,"
a FBI source said of the July 2016 decision not to refer Clinton for criminal charges for violating email and document safeguards
for classified and Top Secret national security intelligence. "McCabe and Comey are both lawyers. They aren't street agents. They're
more political. We wanted her (Clinton) indicted. They did not."
Gov. McAuliffe has been an important Clinton family insider for decades. During Bill Clinton's presidential candidacy and subsequent
reelection, McAuliffe often spearheaded investigations into Clinton critics and helped silence women who alleged Bill Clinton harassed
or sexually assaulted them, sources said.
Ironically, McAuliffe is currently under investigation by the FBI for alleged campaign-related finance infractions.
McAuliffe's contributions to Dr. McCabe's campaign match the exact time frame of the FBI's parallel Clinton investigation.
No contributions were made prior to the FBI's probe of Clinton. McCabe was overseeing personnel decisions, including assigning agents
to the Clinton investigation team, at the FBI's Washington D.C.'s field office when his wife began her 2015 campaign. His wife lost
the election after spending an estimated $1.8 million on the senate run. Three months later, Comey promoted McCabe to FBI Deputy
Director in February 2016. The promotion helped fill a very large void created by the retirement of John Giacalone, who was the supervisor
of the bureau's National Security Branch and also the FBI brains and genesis behind the Clinton email and private server investigation.
Since the inception of the case, Giacalone had spearheaded the Clinton investigation, and helped hand select top agents who were
highly skilled but also discreet. Many of those agents were concerned when Giacalone abruptly resigned in the middle of the investigation.
FBI insiders said Giacalone used the term "sideways" to describe the direction the Clinton probe had taken in the bureau.
Giacalone lamented privately he no longer had confidence in the direction the investigation was headed. He felt it was simpler
to quietly step aside, walk away instead of fight to keep the investigation on its proper track. Giacalone was a true heavyweight
agent at FBI. In fact, he likely should have been running the entire show. His pedigree included running and creating FBI divisions
in New York, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and even serving as deputy commander in the Iraqi theater of operations. But in the
midst of the Clinton investigation, Giacalone handed the bureau his retirement papers in February 2016.
The day after Giacalone's departure, Comey tapped McCabe to help oversee the ongoing Clinton case and personally serve "as
the eyes and ears" for Comey, sources confirmed. Since early July 2016, Comey has come under intense fire from critics and the majority
of Americans who believe he granted Clinton a get-out-of-jail-free card by refusing to refer the case to the Justice Department for
a probable slam-dunk indictment on at least one of potential dozens of criminal charges.
Now Comey, McCabe and their rogue FBI Sanhedrin face a new dilemma: Colleagues who have blown the whistle on the partisan
agency, specifically how personal and political philosophies have crept into the FBI and commandeered the bureau's powerful reach
and resources to tamper with law-abiding White House personnel, including the president. That's called public corruption, a crime
the FBI is tasked with investigating.
Just like it "investigated" $700,000 in donations from the Clinton family to the wife of the FBI's deputy director who, during
the exact time frame was tasked with overseeing the investigation of Hillary Clinton. She ultimately was never charged with any crime
and McCabe received a FBI promotion. Does anyone have the phone number for the FBI's public corruption unit? Or does that line ring
directly to McCabe and Comey?
We would normally demand a federal investigation into such allegations of collusion. But who would conduct it, the FBI?
"... "Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said. "Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue." ..."
Sen. John McCain admitted Wednesday that he gave the FBI a dossier detailing claims of a Russian blackmail plot against President-elect
Donald Trump.
The Arizona lawmaker, a longtime Trump critic, made the public statement as questions piled up about his alleged role in spreading
an unverified and error-riddled document that Trump has denounced as "a complete and total fabrication."
"Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said.
"Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director
of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue."
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
"Not only has the swamp easily, quickly and totally drowned Trump "
Stop right there. Rather than the generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the
first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a
calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?
"Furthermore, the Trump Administration now has released a National Security Strategy which
clearly show that the Empire is in 'full paranoid' mode."
Not "paranoid" but "PNAC" as in PNAC manifesto for world domination and control.
"It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House,
Congress and the US corporate media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if
Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a major war is now
inevitable next year."
Maybe Trump was the "deep state" candidate of choice? Maybe that's why they ran Clinton
against him rather than the more electable Sanders? Maybe that's why Obama started ramping up
tensions with Russia in the early fall of 2016 -- so as to swing the election to Trump (by
giving the disgruntled anti-war Sanders voters a false choice between Trump or war with
Russia?
The man who says he acted as a "go-between" last year to inform Sen. John McCain about the
controversial "dossier" containing salacious allegations about then-candidate Donald Trump is
speaking out, revealing how the ex-British spy who researched the document helped coordinate
its release to the FBI, the media and Capitol Hill.
"My mission was essentially to be a go-between and a messenger, to tell the senator and
assistants that such a dossier existed," Sir Andrew Wood told Fox News in an exclusive
interview with senior executive producer Pamela K. Browne.
Fox News spoke to Wood at the 2017 Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia,
Canada. As Britain's ambassador to Moscow from 1995-2000, Wood witnessed the end of Russian
President Boris Yeltsin and the rise of Vladimir Putin.
Just after the U.S. presidential election in November 2016, Arizona GOP Sen. McCain spoke
at the same security conference. Wood says he was instructed -- by former British spy
Christopher Steele -- to reach out to the senior Republican, whom Wood called "a good man,"
about the unverified document.
Wood insists that he's never read the dossier that his good friend and longtime colleague
prepared. It was commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and funded by the
Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
In August 2016, "[Steele] came to me to tell me what was in it, and why it was important,"
Wood said. "He made it very clear yes, it was raw intelligence, but it needed putting into
proper context before you could judge it fully."
August 2016 is a critical period, just after the FBI opened the Russia meddling probe, and
after then-director James Comey recommended against prosecution for Clinton's mishandling of
classified information.
Wood said Steele had "already been in contact with the FBI" at the time.
"He said there was corroborating evidence in the United States, from which I assumed he
was working with an American company," Wood said.
British court records reviewed by Fox News as well as U.S. congressional testimony
revealed that Steele was directed and paid at least $168,000 by Fusion GPS founder Glenn
Simpson to push the research that fall to five American media outlets. According to British
court documents, Steele met with The New York Times (twice), The Washington Post (twice),
CNN, The New Yorker and Yahoo News (twice).
"Each of these interviews was conducted in person and with a member of Fusion also
present," according to the records associated with separate civil litigation against Steele
and Fusion GPS.
Wood said he'd heard of Fusion GPS, as the group Steele was working with, but had "never
heard of Mr. Simpson."
Three weeks after Trump won the presidential election, at the Canadian security
conference, the details were finalized for the dossier hand-off to McCain.
Along with the senator, Wood and McCain Institute for International Leadership staffer
David J. Kramer attended the Canadian conference.
British court records state McCain ordered Kramer to get a personal briefing from Steele
in Surrey, just outside of London, and then return to Washington, D.C., where Fusion GPS
would provide McCain with hard copies.
In January, McCain officially gave the dossier to the FBI, which already had its own copy
from Steele.
Of note, listed in the official program for the 2016 November Canadian conference as a
participant was Rinat Akhmetshin -- the same Russian lobbyist who was at Trump Tower five
months earlier in June for a highly scrutinized meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and others.
The senator's office noted to Fox News that McCain said in January 2017 he had no contact
with Akhmetshin. "Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made
public. Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy,
I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my
contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue."
It is not known whether Akhmetshin had any contact with Kramer. Fusion GPS and Kramer did
not respond to requests for comment from Fox News.
Doesn't this make McCain guilty of offenses under the Logan act; the very offense that was
commonly levelled against Trump and called "collusion" in the press.
This confirms that Congressional Senators and Congressmen should operate under time limits
as well as be harshly punished for treasonous activity, meaning they are policed.
Exactly, as this will go on forever just to escape any scandal and other involvements of a
dubious nature. The US "justice" system is obviously primitive enough to allow this kind of
nonsense to continue.
"According to British court documents, Steele met with The New York Times (twice), The
Washington Post (twice), CNN, The New Yorker and Yahoo News (twice)."
Right there are your "fake news" propaganda sources. What do you want to bet they are all
Jewish owned...yet Trump kisses judea'sass?
Well, at the least it makes John McCain a total stooge who let his bias against Trump
override his ability to use good judgement, which by the way is already lacking.
"... Comey FBI also used the largely debunked Trump dossier, which alleged Russian ties to the President's campaign associates, to convince a judge to grant them a FISA warrant, allowing them to secretly monitor Trump campaign official Carter Page. ..."
"... Remember..."It is honourable to deceive the 'infidel'." This is just an 'inkling' of how far our mainstream media and 'establishment politicians' have waded into this 'cesspool'.... ..."
Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson spoke with US House investigators in a closed-door
meeting Tuesday, and confirmed what many in the non-establishment media already knew that
Fusion GPS never verified the Dossier claims before passing on the ridiculous document to the
corrupt establishment press.
According to
The Gateway Pundit , Herridge also said that her source told her that Glenn Simpson was
"upset" when Comey re-opened Hillary's email investigation at the end of October and wanted to
push back.
And he did
On October 31st, 2016 with just days to go until election day, David Corn of Mother Jones broke the story of a 'veteran spy' who gave the FBI information on
Trump's alleged connections to Russia. Christopher Steele, British spy and author of the
garbage dossier was not named in this Mother Jones report. Only hints of the dossier were
published; the salacious claims were omitted.
Hillary Clinton was disappointed the entire dossier hadn't been published in full prior to
the election. After all, she paid millions of dollars for the smear document.
The author of the dossier, Christopher Steele was also desperate to get the salacious
document out to the public. He told David Corn of
Mother Jones, "The story has to come out."
A week later, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were in utter shock when Trump won the
presidential election. Desperate to delegitimatize him,
BuzzFeed published the entire dossier on January 10th, right before the inauguration.
According to the Washington Post , the FBI agreed to pay the British Spy who
compiled the garbage dossier after the election to continue to dig up dirt on Trump and
Russia.
The FBI pulled out of this arrangement once the author of the dossier, Christopher Steele
was publicly identified in media reports.
Comey FBI also used the largely debunked Trump dossier, which alleged Russian ties to the
President's campaign associates, to
convince a judge to grant them a FISA warrant, allowing them to secretly monitor Trump
campaign official Carter Page.
Totally BUSTED ! Scam artists that they are. So how much money is the wild goose chase
going to cost American taxpayers. When are they going to start indicting some of these
scumbags, this is getting old already.
Remember..."It is honourable to deceive the 'infidel'." This is just an 'inkling' of how
far our mainstream media and 'establishment politicians' have waded into this
'cesspool'....
How Strzok could miss those? They were available to him since 2016.
Notable quotes:
"... As you may recall, the discovery of these emails on Weiner's computer is what prompted Comey to re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigation roughly 1 week prior to the election, a decision which the Hillary camp insists is the reason why they lost the White House. ..."
"... Large portions of the 2,800 page release were redacted prior to release by the State Department. ..."
"... In at least two instances, Abedin directly forwarded Anthony Weiner official conversations - one of which included Hillary Clinton and senior advisor Jake Sullivan with subject "Lavrov" - referring to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. The email discusses an official response by a "quartet" of envoys (The US, EU, UN, and Russia) over Israel's announced changes to its Gaza policy, ending a contentious blockade. ..."
"... In a statement issued Friday, Judicial watch called the release a "major victory," adding "After years of hard work in federal court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents. It will be in keeping with our past experience that Abedin's emails on Weiner's laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials. That these government docs were on Anthony Weiner's laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious investigation of Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's obvious violations of law." ..."
"... Really, is anyone surprised that there were classified emails on Huma Abedin or Anthony Weiner's laptop? ..."
"... The surprise is that it was confiscated back in October 2016 and it took 14 months to reveal that at least 5 emails were classified as confidential. Apparently there were 2800 such emails, an average of 7 per day every day, or 10 per day using 5 day workweeks. Although these 2800 were released, this evidently is a subset of "tens of thousands" of email reported last year to be on that laptop. ..."
"... "Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.' " And so far, neither has Jeff Sessions. Get after him, Donald!!!! ..."
"... The lunacy of all of this is that it is taking private groups and citizen journalists to pull out the information that one would think the DOJ would have been interested in months ago. And it means that organizations like Judicial Watch and citizen journalists like George Webb and others are limited to using civil courts because they are not federal prosecutors. ..."
"... Hillary, Huma, et al exchanging classified emails on unsecured servers and computers was a big nothing burger according to Andy and friends at the FBI. ..."
As you may recall, the discovery of these emails on Weiner's computer is what
prompted Comey to re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigation roughly 1 week prior to the election, a decision which the
Hillary camp insists is the reason why they lost the White House.
Of course, while the Hillary campaign attempted to dismiss the emails as just another 'nothing burger', the
Daily
Mail reports that an initial review of the 2,800 documents dumped by the State Department reveal at least 5 emails classified
at the 'confidential level,' the third most sensitive level the U.S. government uses.
The classified emails date from 2010-2012, and concern discussions with Middle East leaders, including those from the United Arab
Emirates, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas - which was
declared a terrorist organization by the European Court of Justice in July. Large portions of the 2,800 page release were redacted
prior to release by the State Department.
According to the
Daily
Mail , three of the emails were sent either to or from an address called "BBB Backup," which one email identifies as a backup
of a Blackberry Bold 9700 - presumably belonging to Abedin.
As a civilian, Weiner - though once a congressman, was unlikely to have possessed the proper clearance to view or store the classified
documents on his laptop .
A sample of the documents can be seen below, first, a "Call Sheet" prepared for Hillary's discussion with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu:
And another update regarding "Hamas-PLO Talks":
In at least two instances, Abedin directly forwarded Anthony Weiner official conversations - one of which included Hillary Clinton
and senior advisor Jake Sullivan with subject "Lavrov" - referring to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. The email
discusses an official response by a "quartet" of envoys (The US, EU, UN, and Russia) over
Israel's announced
changes to its Gaza policy, ending a contentious blockade.
One wonders why Anthony Weiner would need to know about this?
Abedin also forwarded Weiner an email discussion
from July 22, 2012 which had previously been released by WikiLeaks - which included the Ambassador to Senegal, Mushingi Tulinabo.
While the contents of the email are redacted, Senegal had elected a new President
earlier that month . Of note, the Clinton Foundation
has supported or been involved in several projects in the country.
In a statement issued Friday, Judicial watch called the release a "major victory," adding "After years of hard work in federal
court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents. It will be in keeping
with our past experience that Abedin's emails on Weiner's laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials. That these
government docs were on Anthony Weiner's laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious
investigation of Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's obvious violations of law."
Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents
and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.'
Not surprisingly, Abedin was spotted heading into the Hillary Clinton offices in midtown Manhattan earlier today just a few hours
before the release of the 2,800 emails. Seems you're never too old to be called into the Principal's office...
We're confident this will all be promptly dismissed by Hillary as just another effort to "criminalize behavior that is normal
"because what government employee hasn't shared classified materials with their convicted pedophile husband? Certainly, just another
boring day in Washington... Tags Politics
Really, is anyone surprised that there were classified emails on Huma Abedin or Anthony Weiner's laptop?
The surprise is that it was confiscated back in October 2016 and it took 14 months to reveal that at least 5 emails were classified
as confidential. Apparently there were 2800 such emails, an average of 7 per day every day, or 10 per day using 5 day workweeks.
Although these 2800 were released, this evidently is a subset of "tens of thousands" of email reported last year to be on that
laptop.
It's been reported on an other site that the Awan trial, which had been postponed until Jan 8th, is now erased from all federal
court dockets. No one knows the significance of this, whether it means the "fix" is in or they are turning state's evidence on
Hillary, etc? I hope it's the latter but knowing Sessions and the rest of the fucking corrupt pieces of shit in the DOJ and FBI,
I fear these assholes are being let off the hook.
"Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents
and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.' " And so far, neither has Jeff Sessions. Get after him, Donald!!!!
The lunacy of all of this is that it is taking private groups and citizen journalists to pull out the information that one
would think the DOJ would have been interested in months ago. And it means that organizations like Judicial Watch and citizen journalists like George Webb and others are limited to using
civil courts because they are not federal prosecutors. The question is why are those who are being paid with our tax dollars to
enforce the law in criminal courts expending so much effort to avoid doing that job.
Ultimately, President Trump has to answer that question because this is now coming out on his watch.
Ya, its pretty infuriating. Trumps been in office for a year. Sessions, at least on paper, is in charge of the DOJ. The FBI
works for him too. Why isn't anything being done about this?
I wonder, will Abedin be the fall girl for the Clintons? "It was all her fault! She took the emails without me knowing it!" Her being "called into the principal's office" is also telling. Instructions on what to say.
I am curious as to what assurances we have that there weren't actually another 100 emails that didn't just magically disappear?
We've given these alphabet agencies years to "redact" sensitive material, how do we know that the "smoking gun" emails weren't
redacted entirely?
DNC doing actual opposition research by paying actual Russians for information is perfectly acceptable. Trump team allegedly doing opposition research by speaking with Russians is a criminal offence. That seems reasonable.
Hillary, Huma, et al exchanging classified emails on unsecured servers and computers was a big nothing burger according to
Andy and friends at the FBI.
I was searching for a word to describe our media and Federal law enforcement who are both impervious to truth and justice.
It led me to wondering if the Devil permits truth to penetrate in Hell and decided that the condemned there hear more of it that
Americans do today. You'd have to go back to NAZI Germany or Stalinist Russia for a comparison of how little we're told was true.
Don't believe me? We're mushrooms, kept in a dark cave and fed a steady diet of bullshit. We're GOOD mushrooms. A bumper crop
this year.
The emails were discovered on Anthony's laptop by NYPD when they were investigating the pervert's connection to the child in
North Carolina. The laptop was turned over to the FBI. If you want to say the FBI discovered the emails, that takes the credit
away from the NYPD. Comey reopened the Hillary investigation because NYPD kept copies.
" [A]n initial review of the 2,800 documents dumped by the State Department reveal at least 5 emails classified at the 'confidential
level,' the third most sensitive level the U.S. government uses. "
While I'm for anything and everything that harms the Clinton family and its cohort, let me point out that the 'confidential
level' security classification, in addition to being the third most sensitive level of security classification is also also the
very lowest level of security classification.
One would hope (in vain I've recently concluded) that ZH would make some small attempt to not slant its 'news' coverage with
such erroneous and inflammatory 'reporting'. I thought we had decided to leave fear mongering and lying to the mainstream media.
I suppose I was wrong.
The alleged Russian computer Hacker named Guccifer 2.0 whom the Democrat National Committee
has publicly blamed for hacking its emails and giving them to WIkiLeaks before the Election in
order for Russia to help Donald Trump, was really a fiction created by an Obama White House
Staffer in order to prevent the exposure of why DNC Staffer Seth Rich was murdered and also try
to pin the exposure of DNC emails on Russia and Trump.
Democrat operatives had pushed the fictional Guccifer 2.0 story as the supposed Russian
hacker who broke into DNC servers and downloaded thousands of emails, then sent them to the
Russians, who then sent them to Wikileaks so Hilary Clinton could be defeated.
Never mind that it has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the download speed
was far too great to have been done by anyone but a DNC insider like Seth Rich. Because
Internet speeds are not nearly sufficient to support download speed that the meta data,
embedded in the emails, reported.
Never mind that the same meta data shows that the download came from the eastern time zone
of the US, not Romania or Russia.
A five minute video (below) proves Guccifer 2.0 was an invention of someone using a version
of Microsoft Word that was originally registered to a DNC / White House Staffer named Warren
Flood.
Here are two screen shots from warren floods Facebook page. Notice that warren worked for
"Obama for America," the DNC, and the White House . He lives in LaGrange, GA.
The video below does a great job explaining who is behind the original Trump opposition
research leaked via WikiLeaks AND the later (same) document allegedly obtained by Guccifer 2.0
by "hacking."
EVIDENCE OF DNC/WHITE HOUSE STAFFER BEING "RUSSIAN HACKER GUCCIFER
2.0″
If you have ever accidentally tried to open a Microsoft Word document in a simple text
editor like Notepad, you can see the meta data behind each word document, including WHO that
copy of Word belongs to.
The video below explains who the author of the original opposition research document was and
how we know:
. . . it also includes who the AUTHOR of the document of is. It gets that information from
the name that was entered when you installed your copy of Microsoft Office. Inside the
original trump opposition research, the document later released by WikiLeaks, the author of
the document is listed as Lauren Dillon , DNC Research Director.
This is Lauren Dillion from the DNC:
The metadata in the WikiLeaks release of Trump Opposition research shows that it was created
by Lauren Dillon, as show below:
_______________
HOWEVER, that same document later released by Guccifer 2.0 shows a CHANGE in who authored
Document; this later copy showing the Author as Warren Flood . . . . who worked in the White
House!
Thus, the entire claim by Guccifer 2.0 that he was a Russian Hacker who stole the DNC
emails, was a deliberate deception attributable to a staffer in the Obama White House: Warren
Flood.
Here's the kicker, the version of Trump's opposition research file that was originally
released by WikiLeaks, and later released to the Main-Stream-Media (MSM), was never attributed
to the DNC, it was attributed to the Russian Hacker "Guccifer 2.0 -- A man jailed in Romania
for hacking.
THE DNC/WHITE HOUSE "FATAL MISTAKE"
It just wouldn't do, to have the head of research for the DNC be the Leaker to WikiLeaks or
to have the later Guccifer 2.0 release to come from a White House staffer, it had to
be attributable to someone connected to the Russians. The Romanian guy was the FALL GUY.
The one fatal mistake the DNC and the Obama White House made was that no one remembered
about the Microsoft Word metadata which reveals the owner of that particular copy of the Word
software. So, according to the evidence, Guccifer 2.0 was actually DNC/White House Staffer,
Warren Flood.
Yes, you read that correctly: EVIDENCE. Not speculation, or rumor, or innuendo. Actual real
life, hard copy EVIDENCE.
Guccifer 2.0 was an invention of the DNC/White House to cover-up who the real leaker was;
and at the same time start the Russian Hacking rumors that persist today.
INTERESTINGLY, the Wikipedia entry for Guccifer 2.0, describes an interview he did with
MotherBoard via an online chat. Guccifer 2.0 insisted he was Romanian but, when pressed to use
the Romanian language in an interview with an Interview with Motherboard via an online chat, he
used such clunky grammar and terminology that experts believe he was using an online
translator.
Bottom line: The Obama White House invention of Guccifer 2.0, apparently through its Staffer
Warren Flood, accomplished three things:
1) It covered DNC research director Lauren Dillon. Whatever sort of opposition research she
authored was later claimed by Guccifer 2.0.
2) It covered for Seth Rich. This is the BIG ONE, because he was killed in an obvious
assassination staged to look like street robbery -- the only problem is, the robbers didn't
take anything. He still had all his cash and his Rolex watch when police arrived. And Guccifer
2.0 took also credit for the Podesta emails which were actually downloaded by Seth Rich and
given to WikiLeaks.
AND;
3) It created the conduit to "Russian Intelligence" to fortify the claim that it was the
Russians who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, and therefore Trump "was in collusion with the
Russians" to defeat Clinton.
The whole claim of "Russian Hacking" and "Trump colluding with Russians" has come unraveled
because it was ALL a complete fraud.
What remains is how this fraud is STILL affecting our nation to this very day, and how the
Congress of the United States, acting late last month upon this totally FALSE "Russian Hacking"
claim, has now enacted further sanction upon Russia – sanctions that will very likely
lead to war.
VIDEO EVIDENCE
Here is the video containing the EVIDENCE that the Wikileaks original Trump Opposition
document was created by a user whose Microsoft Word software was registered to DNC Research
Director Lauren Dillon, and the later exact same document, allegedly hacked by "GUccifer
2.0″ was done by DNC/White House Staffer William Flood
Hunt was a member of the White House "plumbers," the secret team assembled
to stop government leaks after defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the press. A former CIA operative, Hunt organized the bugging of the
Democratic headquarters in the Watergate -- as well as a break-in at the office of
Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Hunt's phone number in address books belonging to the
Watergate burglars helped investigators -- and reporters -- connect the break-in to
the president and his reelection campaign. Convicted of burglary, conspiracy and
wiretapping, Hunt served 33 months in prison.
By the time of the Watergate burglary, Hunt was already moonlighting as a spy
novelist. He has since penned dozens of books, including a memoir and "Dragon
Teeth," a thriller published this May.
In 1981, Hunt won $650,000 in a libel suit against the Liberty Lobby for a 1978
article that appeared in the right-wing group's conspiracy-minded newspaper, The
Spotlight. The article linked Hunt to the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
suggesting the CIA man was in Dallas on the day of the 1963 shooting. Mark Lane,
author of the best-selling "Rush to Judgment," successfully defended Liberty Lobby
in a second trial in 1985, overturning the original libel award. Lane outlined his
theory about Hunt's and the CIA's role in Kennedy's murder in a 1991 book,
"Plausible Denial."
Hunt filed for bankruptcy protection from his creditors in June 1995. He died at
a Miami hospital after a lengthy bout with pneumonia Jan. 23, 2007.
Hunt was a member of the White House "plumbers," the secret team assembled
to stop government leaks after defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the press. A former CIA operative, Hunt organized the bugging of the
Democratic headquarters in the Watergate -- as well as a break-in at the office of
Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Hunt's phone number in address books belonging to the
Watergate burglars helped investigators -- and reporters -- connect the break-in to
the president and his reelection campaign. Convicted of burglary, conspiracy and
wiretapping, Hunt served 33 months in prison.
By the time of the Watergate burglary, Hunt was already moonlighting as a spy
novelist. He has since penned dozens of books, including a memoir and "Dragon
Teeth," a thriller published this May.
In 1981, Hunt won $650,000 in a libel suit against the Liberty Lobby for a 1978
article that appeared in the right-wing group's conspiracy-minded newspaper, The
Spotlight. The article linked Hunt to the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
suggesting the CIA man was in Dallas on the day of the 1963 shooting. Mark Lane,
author of the best-selling "Rush to Judgment," successfully defended Liberty Lobby
in a second trial in 1985, overturning the original libel award. Lane outlined his
theory about Hunt's and the CIA's role in Kennedy's murder in a 1991 book,
"Plausible Denial."
Hunt filed for bankruptcy protection from his creditors in June 1995. He died at
a Miami hospital after a lengthy bout with pneumonia Jan. 23, 2007.
The Watergate Break-In
June 16, 1972: In room 214 of the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C., seven men gathered to
finalize their plans to break in to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters,
located on the sixth floor of one of the Watergate complex's six buildings. One of these men,
G. Gordon Liddy , was a former FBI agent. Another, E. Howard Hunt , had retired from the CIA.
James McCord would handle the bugging, Bernard Barker would photograph documents, and Virgilio
Gonzalez would pick the locks. The remaining two, Eugenio Martinez and Frank Sturgis, would
serve as lookouts. Several of these men were Cuban exiles who had met Hunt through their
participation in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion back in 1961.
"... . . . it is sometimes difficult for us to understand the intensity of our public critics. Criticism of our efficiency is one thing, criticism of our responsibility quite another. I believe that we are . . . a legitimate object of public concern . . . I find it painful, however, when public debate lessens our usefulness to the nation by casting doubt on our integrity and objectivity. If we are not believed, we have no purpose. . . 30 ..."
During his later years at the CIA, Helms witnessed the Agency and the whole enterprise of
intelligence fall into disrepute as Congress and the public subjected US foreign policy to
unprecedented criticism. Helms took the occasion of his only public speech as DCI to affirm
that "the nation must to a degree take it on faith that we too are honorable men devoted to her
service."
28 By the end of his directorship, however, years of political protest, social
upheaval, and revelations of government incompetence and wrongdoing had depleted much of that
faith. Helms became a (not entirely blameless) casualty of that rapid and sweeping change in
the American people's sense of what their government should and should not do. He had once said
that Americans "want an effective, strong intelligence operation. They just don't want to hear
too much about it."
29 But now prominent voices demanded of the CIA far more accountability than Helms
was used to or thought appropriate. As he wrote in this journal in 1967:
. . . it is sometimes difficult for us to understand the intensity of our public
critics. Criticism of our efficiency is one thing, criticism of our responsibility quite
another. I believe that we are . . . a legitimate object of public concern . . . I find it
painful, however, when public debate lessens our usefulness to the nation by casting doubt on
our integrity and objectivity. If we are not believed, we have no purpose. . .
30
Helms declined a presidential request to submit his resignation after the 1972 elections,
not wanting to set a precedent that he thought would politicize the position of DCI. After he
was forced out in 1973 -- he believed that Nixon was mad at him for refusing to use the CIA in
the Watergate cover up -- Helms spent several years coping with controversies ensuing in part
from some of his acts of omission and commission while at the Agency. He became a lightning rod
for criticism of the CIA during its "time of troubles" in the mid-1970s. He was called back
many times from his ambassadorial post in Tehran to testify before investigatory bodies about
assassination plots, domestic operations, drug testing, the destruction of records, and other
activities of dubious legality and ethicality known collectively as the "Family Jewels." He
responded to inquiries about them cautiously, sometimes testily, as he tried to walk the
increasingly fuzzy line between discretion and disclosure.
Helms ran into legal troubles resulting from his judgment about when and when not to reveal
secrets. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just after leaving the
Agency, he denied that the CIA had tried to influence the outcome of the Chilean presidential
election in 1970. Helms described his quandary this way: "If I was to live up to my oath and
fulfill my statutory responsibility to protect intelligence sources and methods from
unauthorized disclosure, I could not reveal covert operations to people unauthorized to learn
about them."
31 He eventually pleaded no contest to charges of not testifying "fully, completely
and accurately" to the committee. His statement to the federal judge who was about to sentence
him, although addressed to the immediate situation, could also summarize nearly his whole
experience as DCI: "I was simply trying to find my way through a difficult situation in which I
found myself
Notes: (1) Although these excerpts do not contain footnotes, the book itself is heavily
footnoted and exhaustively sourced. (2) To distinguish between George Bush, father and son,
George H.W. Bush is sometimes referred to by his nickname Poppy, and George W. Bush by his, W.
(3) Additional context can be found in the preceding chapters.
Before you read this second installment, please go
here to read the first installment.
***********
Family of Secrets
Chapter 10: Downing Nixon: The Setup
Who Will Rid Me of This Troublesome Priest? ascribed to Henry II
On June 17, 1972, a group of burglars, carrying electronic surveillance
equipment, was arrested inside the Democratic National
Committee offices at 2650 Virginia Avenue, NW, in Washington,
D.C., the Watergate building complex. The men were quickly identified as
having ties to the Nixon reelection campaign and to the White House.
Though at the time the incident got little attention, it would snowball into
one of the biggest crises in American political history, define Richard Nixon
forever, and drive him out of the White House.
Most historical accounts judge Nixon responsible in some way for the
Watergate burglary -- or at least for an effort to cover it up. And many people
believe Nixon got what he deserved.
But like other epic events, Watergate turns out to be an entirely different
story than the one we thought we knew.
Hanky-Panky, Cuban-Style
Almost no one has better expressed reasons to doubt Nixon's involvement
than Nixon himself. In his memoirs, Nixon described how he learned about
the burglary while vacationing in Florida, from the morning newspaper. He
recalled his reaction at the time:
It sounded preposterous. Cubans in surgical gloves bugging the DNC! I dismissed it as some sort of prank . . . The whole thing made so little sense. Why, I wondered. Why then? Why in such a blundering way . . . Anyone who knew anything about politics would know that a national committee headquarters was a useless place to go for inside information on a presidential campaign. The whole thing was so senseless and bungled that it almost looked like some kind of a setup.
Nixon was actually suggesting not just a setup, but one intended to harm
him.
Perhaps because anything he might say would seem transparently self-
serving, this claim received little attention and has been largely forgotten.
Notwithstanding Nixon's initial reaction to the news of the break-in,
less than a week later he suddenly learned more -- and this gave him much
to ponder.
On June 23, Nixon's chief of staff, H. R. "Bob" Haldeman, came into the
Oval Office to give the president an update on a variety of topics, including
the investigation of the break-in. Haldeman had just been briefed by John
Dean, who had gotten his information from FBI investigators.
HALDEMAN: . . . The FBI agents who are working the case, at this point, feel that's what it is. This is CIA .
Nixon's response would show that he had already realized this:
NIXON: Of course, this is a, this is a [E. Howard] Hunt [operation, and exposure of it] will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things and that we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves This will open the whole Bay of Pigs thing
Of course, it is important to remember that Nixon knew every word he
uttered was being recorded. Like his predecessors Kennedy and Johnson,
he had decided to install a taping system so that he could maintain a record
of his administration. He was, in a way, dictating a file memo for future historians.
But that doesn't make everything he said untrue. While Nixon undoubtedly
spun some things, he still had to communicate with his subordinates,
and the tape was rolling while he was trying to run the country. Those were
actual meetings and real conversations, tape or no tape. And though the
result was 3,700 hours of White House tape recordings, Nixon evinced
merely sporadic consciousness of the fact that the tape was rolling. Only after
his counsel John Dean defected to the prosecutors did Nixon appear to
be tailoring his words.
Nixon's memoirs, combined with the tape of June 23, make clear that
Nixon recognized certain things about the implementation of the burglary.
The caper was carried out by pros, yet paradoxically was amateurish, easily
detected -- an instigation of the crime more easily pinned on someone else.
A break-in at Democratic Party headquarters: On whom would that be
blamed? Well, who was running against a Democrat for reelection that
fall? Why, Richard Nixon of course. Nixon, who frequently exhibited a grim
and self-pitying awareness of how he generally was portrayed, might have
grasped how this would play out publicly. Dick Nixon: ruthless, paranoid,
vengeful -- Tricky Dick. Wouldn't this burglary be just the kind of thing that
that Dick Nixon -- the "liberal media's" version of him -- would do? Nixon's
opponent, George McGovern, made this charge repeatedly during the 1972
campaign.
Though Nixon would sweep the election, it would become increasingly
apparent to him that, where Watergate was concerned, the jury was stacked.
The path was set. Someone had him in a corner.
But who?
Many people, including those within Nixon's own base of support, were
not happy with him -- even from early in his administration. As Haldeman
noted in his diary, one month after the inauguration in 1969:
Also got cranking on the political problem. [President's] obviously concerned about reports (especially Buchanan's) that conservatives and the South are unhappy. Also he's annoyed by constant right- wing bitching, with never a positive alternative. Ordered me to assemble a political group and really hit them to start defending us, including Buchanan . . . [and political specialist Harry] Dent.
There would be growing anger in the Pentagon about Nixon and Kissinger's
secret attempts to secure agreements with China and the Soviet Union without
consulting the military. And there were the oilmen, who found Nixon
wasn't solid enough on their most basic concerns, such as the oil depletion
allowance and oil import quotas.
As for the burglary crew, Nixon recognized them instantly, because he
knew what they represented. While serving as vice president, Nixon had
overseen some covert operations and served as the "action officer" for the
planning of the Bay of Pigs, of which these men were hard-boiled veterans.
They had been out to overthrow Fidel Castro, and if possible, to kill him.
Nixon had another problem. These pros were connected to the CIA, and
as we shall see, Nixon was not getting along well with the agency.
One of the main reasons we fundamentally misunderstand Watergate is
that the guardians of the historical record focused only on selected parts of
Nixon's taped conversations, out of context. Consider a widely cited portion
of a June 23 meeting tape, which would become known forever as the
"smoking gun" conversation:
HALDEMAN: The way to handle this now is for us to have [CIA deputy director Vernon] Walters call [FBI interim director] Pat Gray and just say, "Stay the hell out of this this is ah, business here we don't want you to go any further on it." NIXON: Um hum.
Short excerpts like this seem especially damning. This one sounds right
off the bat like a cover-up - Nixon using the CIA to suppress an FBI investigation
into the break-in.
But these utterances take on a different meaning when considered with
other, less publicized parts of the same conversation. A prime example:
Haldeman went on to tell Nixon that Pat Gray, the acting FBI director, had
called CIA director Richard Helms and said, "I think we've run right into
the middle of a CIA covert operation."
Although the first excerpt above sounds like a discussion of a cover-up,
when we consider the information about the CIA involvement, it begins to
seem as if Nixon is not colluding. He may well have been refusing to take the
rap for something he had not authorized -- and certainly not for something
that smelled so blatantly like a trap. Nixon would have understood that if the
FBI were to conduct a full investigation and conclude that the break-in was indeed
an illegal operation of the CIA, it would all be blamed squarely on the
man who supposedly had ultimate authority over both agencies -- him. And
doubly so, since the burglars and their supervisors were tied not just
to the CIA but also directly back to Nixon's reelection committee and the
White House itself.
Yet, however concerned Nixon certainly must have been at this moment,
he played it cool. He concurred with the advice that his chief of staff was
passing along from the counsel John Dean, which was to press the CIA to
clean up its own mess.
If the CIA was involved, then the agency would have to ask the FBI to
back off. The CIA itself would have to invoke its perennial escape clause --
say that national security was at stake.
This must have sounded to Nixon like the best way to deal with a vexing
and shadowy situation. He had no way of knowing that, two years later, his
conversation with Haldeman would be publicly revealed and construed as
that of a man in control of a plot, rather than the target of one.
Sniffing Around the Bay of Pigs
How could Nixon have so quickly gotten a fix on the Watergate crew? He
might have recognized that the involvement of this particular group of
Cubans, together with E. Howard Hunt -- and the evidence tying them back
to the White House -- was in part a message to him. One of the group leaders,
G. Gordon Liddy, would even refer to the team as a bunch of "professional
killers." Indeed
, several of this Bay of Pigs circle had gone to Vietnam
to participate in the assassination-oriented Phoenix Program; as noted in
chapter 7, Poppy Bush and his colleague, CIA operative Thomas Devine,
had been in Vietnam at the peak of Phoenix, and Bush had ties to at least
some from this émigré group.
So Nixon recognized this tough gang, but this time, they weren't focused on
Fidel Castro; they were focused on Dick Nixon.
Hunt was a familiar figure from the CIA old guard. A near contemporary of
Poppy Bush's at Yale , Hunt had, as noted in earlier
chapters, gone on to star in
numerous agency foreign coup operations, including in Guatemala. He had
worked closely with Cuban émigrés and had been in sensitive positions at the
time John F. Kennedy was murdered and Lee Harvey Oswald named the lone
assassin. Moreover, Hunt had been a staunch loyalist of Allen Dulles, whom
Kennedy had ousted over the failed Bay of Pigs invasion; he allegedly even
collaborated on Dulles's 1963 book, The Craft of Intelligence. Hunt was one
connected fellow, and his presence in an operation of this sort, particularly with
veterans of the Cuba invasion, was not something to pass over lightly.
Nixon had further basis for viewing the events of Watergate with special
trepidation. From the moment he entered office until the day, five and a half
years later, when he was forced to resign, Nixon and the CIA had been at
war. Over what? Over records dating back to the Kennedy administration
and even earlier.
Nixon had many reasons to be interested in the events of the early 1960s.
As noted, he had been the "action officer" for the planning of the Bay of Pigs
and the attempt to overthrow Castro. But even more interestingly, Nixon had,
by coincidence, been in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and had left the city
just hours before the man he barely lost to in 1960 had been gunned down.
Five years after the Kennedy assassination, as Richard Nixon himself assumed
the presidency, one of his first and keenest instincts was to try to learn more
about these monumental events of the past decade.
Both of Nixon's chief aides, Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, noted
in their memoirs that the president seemed obsessed with what he called
the "Bay of Pigs thing." Both were convinced that when Nixon used the
phrase, it was shorthand for something bigger and more disturbing. Nixon
did not tell even those closest to him what he meant.
When Nixon referred to the Bay of Pigs, he could certainly have been using
it as a euphemism, because any way one thought about it, it spelled
trouble. The Bay of Pigs invasion itself had been a kind of setup of another
president. JFK had made clear that he would not allow U.S. military forces
to be used against Castro. When the invasion by U.S.-backed Cuban exiles
failed, the CIA and the U.S. military hoped this would force Kennedy to
launch an all-out invasion. Instead, he balked, and blamed Dulles and his
associates for the botched enterprise, and, to their astonishment, forced
them out of the agency. As noted in chapter 4, these were the roots of the hatred
felt by Hunt, Dulles, and the Bush family toward Kennedy.
Nixon was keenly aware that Kennedy's battle with powerful internal elements
had preceded JFK's demise. After all, governments everywhere have
historically faced the reality that the apparatus of state security might have
the chief of state in its gun sights -- and that it certainly possesses the ability
to act.
Moreover, Richard Nixon was a curious fellow. Within days of taking
office in 1969, Nixon had begun conducting an investigation of his own regarding
the turbulent and little-understood days leading up to the end of the
Kennedy administration. He had ordered Ehrlichman, the White House
counsel, to instruct CIA director Helms to hand over the relevant files, which
surely amounted to thousands and thousands of documents. Six months
later, Ehrlichman confided to Haldeman that the agency had failed to produce
any of the files.
"Those bastards in Langley are holding back something," a frustrated
Ehrlichman told Haldeman. "They just dig their heels in and say the President
can't have it. Period. Imagine that. The Commander-in-Chief wants to
see a document and the spooks say he can't have it . . . From the way they're
protecting it, it must be pure dynamite."
Nixon himself then summoned Helms, who also refused to help. Helms
would later recall that Nixon "asked me for some information about the Bay
of Pigs and I think about the Diem episode in Vietnam and maybe something
about Trujillo in the Dominican Republic" -- all events involving the
violent removal of foreign heads of state.
Fidel Castro had managed to survive not only the Bay of Pigs but also multiple
later assassination attempts. Diem and Trujillo were not so fortunate.
And President Kennedy, who made a lot of Cuban enemies after the botched
Bay of Pigs operations, had also succumbed to an assassin's bullet. This was a
legacy that might well seize the attention of one of Kennedy's successors.
The explosiveness of the mysterious "Bay of Pigs thing" became abundantly
apparent on June 23, 1972, the day Nixon instructed Haldeman to tell
CIA director Helms to rein in the FBI's Watergate investigation. Recalled
Haldeman:
Then I played Nixon's trump card. "The President asked me to tell you this entire affair may be connected to the Bay of Pigs, and if it opens up, the Bay of Pigs might be blown . . ."
Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair, leaning forward and shouting, "The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs." . . . I was absolutely shocked by Helms' violent reaction. Again I wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story?
Nixon made clear to his top aides that he was not only obsessed with the
CIA's murky past, but also its present. He seemed downright paranoid about
the agency, periodically suggesting to his aides that covert operatives lurked
everywhere. And indeed, as we shall see, they did.
In all likelihood, the practice of filling the White House with intelligence
operatives was not limited to the Nixon administration, but an ongoing effort.
To the intelligence community, the White House was no different than
other civil institutions it actively penetrated. Presidents were viewed less as
elected leaders to be served than as temporary occupants to be closely monitored,
subtly guided, and where necessary, given a shove.
If the CIA was in fact trying to implicate Nixon in Watergate (and, as we
shall see, in other illegal and troubling covert operations), the goal might
have been to create the impression that the agency was joined at the hip
with Nixon in all things. Then, if Nixon were to pursue the CIA's possible
role in the assassination of Kennedy, the agency could simply claim that
Nixon himself knew about these illegal acts, or was somehow complicit in
them.
A Little Exposure Never Hurts
Something had been gnawing at Nixon since November 22, 1963. Why had
he ended up in Dallas the very day the man who he believed had stolen the
presidency from him was shot? Nixon had been asked to go there just a few
weeks before, for the rather banal purpose of an appearance at a Pepsi-Cola
corporate meeting -- coinciding with a national soda pop bottlers' convention.
The potential implications could not have been lost on this most shrewd and
suspicious man.
Nixon was no shrinking violet in Dallas. He called a press conference in
his hotel suite on November 21, the day before Kennedy's murder, criticizing
Kennedy's policies on civil rights and foreign relations but also urging
Texans to show courtesy to the president during his visit.
More significantly, he declared his belief that Kennedy was going to replace
Vice President Johnson with a new running mate in 1964. This was
an especially incendiary thing to say, since the whole reason for Kennedy's
visit was to cement his links to Texas Democrats, help bridge a gap between
the populist and conservative wings of the state party, and highlight his partnership
with Johnson. Nixon's comment was hot enough that it gained a place in the
early edition of the November 22 Dallas Morning News, under the headline
"Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson."
This was likely to get the attention of Johnson, who would be in the motorcade
that day -- and of conservatives generally, the bottlers included, whom Johnson
had addressed as keynote speaker at their convention earlier in the week.
Nixon had finished his business and left the city by 9:05 on the morning
of the twenty-second, several hours before Kennedy was shot. He learned
of the event on his arrival back in New York City. Like most people, he no
doubt was shocked and perhaps a bit alarmed. Many people, Nixon included,
believed that Kennedy had stolen the presidential election in 1960 by fixing
vote counts in Texas and Illinois.
At the very least, the appearance of Nixon's November 21 press conference
remarks in the newspaper just hours before Kennedy's death was a
stark reminder of the large and diverse group of enemies, in and out of politics,
that JFK had accumulated.
Certainly, Nixon himself was sensitive to the notion that his appearance
in Dallas had somehow contributed to Kennedy's bloody fate. According to
one account, Nixon learned of the assassination while in a taxi cab en route
from the airport. He claimed at the time and in his memoirs that he was
calm, but his adviser Stephen Hess remembered it differently. Hess was
the
first person in Nixon's circle to see him that day in New York, and he recalled
that "his reaction appeared to me to be, 'There but for the Grace of
God go I.' He was very shaken."
As Hess later told political reporter Jules Witcover: "He had the morning
paper, which he made a great effort to show me, reporting he had held a
press conference in Dallas and made a statement that you can disagree with
a person without being discourteous to him or interfering with him. He
tried to make the point that he had tried to prevent it . . . It was his way of
saying, 'Look, I didn't fuel this thing.' "
Nixon's presence in Dallas on November 22, 1963, along with LBJ's --
and Poppy Bush's quieter presence on the periphery -- created a rather remarkable
situation. Three future presidents of the United States were all present in a
single American city on the day when their predecessor was assassinated
there. Within days, a fourth -- Gerald Ford -- would be asked by LBJ to join
the Warren Commission investigating the event.
Bottled Up
Nixon's unfortunate timing resulted from a series of events that seem, in retrospect,
almost to have benefited from a guiding hand. In mid-1963, friends
had persuaded him that his long-term prospects required a move from California,
where he had lost the 1962 race for the governorship. Now that he
was a two-time loser, Nixon's best hope, they counseled, was to find a position
in New York that would pay him handsomely, and let him politick and
keep himself in the public eye. His friend Donald Kendall, the longtime head
of Pepsi's international operations, offered to make him chairman of the
international division. But the consensus was that a law firm job would suit
him better, so he joined the firm of Mudge, Stern, Baldwin, and Todd.
Kendall sweetened the deal by throwing the law firm Pepsi's lucrative legal
business. In September, Kendall himself was promoted to head the entire
Pepsi company.
On November 1, President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, a corrupt
anti-Communist, was overthrown and assassinated. On November 7, Nixon
wrote to GOP strategist Robert Humphreys, expressing outrage over Diem's
death and blaming the Kennedy administration. "Our heavy-handed complicity
in his murder can only have the effect of striking terror in the hearts
of leaders of other nations who presumably are our friends."
Historians disagree on what exactly Kennedy knew about Diem's death,
though Kennedy registered shock at the news -- just as he had when Patrice
Lumumba, the Congolese independence leader, was assassinated in 1961.
Kennedy realized that he could be blamed. Later on, it would be established
by the Senate Intelligence Committee that the CIA had been attempting to
kill Lumumba.
Also of interest is a little-noticed comment made by President Lyndon
Johnson in 1966, caught by his own recording equipment, in which he
declared about Diem: "We killed him. We all got together and got a god-
damn bunch of thugs and assassinated him." It is not clear whom he
meant by "we."
Kendall asked Nixon to accompany him to Dallas for the Pepsi corporate
gathering coinciding with the bottlers' convention in late November. The
convention was an important annual event for Pepsi, and so would have
been on Kendall's schedule for a while, though the necessity of Nixon's
presence is less apparent. And with LBJ as keynote speaker, and appearances
by Miss USA, Yogi Berra, and Joan Crawford, Nixon, the two-time loser, did
not even appear at the convention.
For his part, Nixon seems to have agreed to go because it was an opportunity
to share the limelight surrounding Kennedy's visit. And since Nixon was
traveling as a representative of Pepsi, and flying on its corporate plane --
something noted in the news coverage -- Kendall was getting double duty out
of Nixon's play for media attention. That was something Kendall understood
well.
Donald Kendall was, like Nixon and Poppy Bush, a World War II Navy
vet who had served in the Pacific. But instead of politics, he had gone into
the business world, joining the Pepsi- Cola company and rising quickly
through the ranks. Like Nixon and Bush, he was enormously ambitious.
And in his oversight of Pepsi operations abroad, he also shared something
else with them: a deep concern about Communist encroachment -- which
was just about everywhere. Plus Kendall had a passion for covert operations.
Kendall's particular reason for being interested in Cuba was sugar, for
many years a key ingredient of Pepsi-Cola. Cuba was the world's leading
supplier; and Castro's expropriations, and the resulting U.S. embargo, had
caused chaos in the soft drink industry. (It also had affected the fortunes of
Wall Street firms such as Brown Brothers Harriman, which, as noted in
chapter 3, had extensive sugar holdings on the island.)
Indeed, articles from the Dallas papers anticipating the bottlers' convention
talked openly about all these problems with Cuba. One of the articles, titled
"Little Relief Seen for Sugar Problem," explains the pressure
felt by soft drink
bottlers in light of a crisis concerning high sugar prices. The president of a major
New York-based sugar company is quoted explaining why the crisis had
not yet been averted: "The government probably thought the Castro regime
might be eliminated."
It is in this context that we consider a June 1963 letter from Nixon to
Kendall, then still running Pepsi's foreign operations. A researcher working
for me found it in Nixon's presidential library archives; it appears to be previously
unpublished.
Dear Don: In view of our discussion yesterday morning with regard to Cuba, I thought you might like to see a copy of the speech I made before the American Society of Newspaper Editors in which I directed remarks toward this problem. When I return from Europe I am looking forward to having a chance to get a further fill-in with regard to your experiences on the Bay of Pigs incident.
Dick
The letter rings a little odd. Nixon and Kendall were close, and more than
two years had passed since the Bay of Pigs; it was unlikely that this would be
the first chance Nixon got to discuss the subject with his friend. Furthermore,
Kendall is not known to have had any "experiences" in relation to the invasion.
In a 2008 interview, Kendall, by then eighty-seven years old but still maintaining
an office at Pepsi and seeming vigorous, said that he could not recall the letter
nor provide an explanation for it.
Given this, the use of the phrase in the letter appears to be some form of
euphemism between friends, a sort of discreet wink. Nixon, the former
coordinator of covert operations under Ike, clearly knew that Kendall was
more than a soda pop man. Nixon's experiences representing Pepsi instilled
in him a lasting -- and not altogether favorable -- impression of what he
acidly termed "the sugar lobby." Haldeman got the message that treading
carefully was wise. Some of his notes are intriguing in this respect. He
urges special counsel Charles Colson:
0900 Cols[on] -- re idea of getting pol. Commitments -- Sugar people are richest & most ruthless before we commit -- shld put screws on & get quid pro quo ie Fl[anigan] -- always go to Sugar lobby or oil etc. before we give them anything
The CIA also knew the soft drink industry well. The agency used bottling
plants, including those run by Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and other companies, for
both cover and intelligence. Moreover, the local bottling franchises tended
to be given to crucial figures in each country, with ties to the military and
the ruling elites. It was not just bottlers that played such a role; there were
marketing monopolies for all kinds of products, from cars to sewing machines,
given out on recommendations of the CIA.
Kendall was a close friend of the Bush family and a fellow resident of
Greenwich, Connecticut. In 1988, he would serve in the crucial position of
finance chairman for Poppy Bush's successful run for the presidency. His
support for the Bushes included donating to George W. Bush's 1978 Midland
congressional campaign.
And as noted by the New York Times , Kendall was
identified with the successful
effort to overthrow the elected democratic socialist president of Chile, Salvador
Allende.
As the Times would report in July 1976:
One of Mr. Kendall's great passions is international trade, and his interest in foreign affairs won him a footnote in a 1975 interim report of a Senate Select Committee. The report was called "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders," and discussed in part the assassination of Salvador Allende Gossens, the Marxist Chilean president who was killed in 1973. The report stated that Mr. Kendall had requested in 1970 that Augustin Edwards, who was publisher of the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio, as well as a Pepsi bottler in Chile, meet with high Nixon Administration officials to report on the political situation in Chile. (Pepsi bottling operations were later expropriated by the regime.) That meeting, which included Mr. Kendall, Mr. Edwards, Henry Kissinger and John N. Mitchell, was indeed held, and later the same day, Mr. Nixon met with Dr. Kissinger and Richard Helms, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Helms later testified that President Nixon had ordered at the follow-up meeting that Chile was to be saved from Allende "and he didn't care much how." Mr. Kendall says he sees nothing sinister, or for that matter even controversial, in his action.
Like many on the right, quite a few bottlers regarded the Kennedy administration's
policy toward Castro's Cuba as dangerously soft. Declassified FBI
files show that, after Kennedy's death, one man contacted the FBI regarding
threatening remarks that his brother, a bottler, had made in reference to the
president. Another convention attendee was identified in FBI reports as
having had a drink with Jack Ruby, the assassin of Lee Harvey Oswald, on
the night of November 21.
Though unhappy with Kennedy, these independent businessmen clearly
wanted to hear what Johnson had to say, which is why the Texas-born vice
president was the convention's keynote speaker.
By some estimates, the convention included close to eight thousand
bottlers -- so many, in fact, that it had taken over Dallas's largest venue, the
new Market Hall. This meant that when Kennedy's trip planners determined
where he would speak on November 22, one of the very few sufficiently large
and central venues had long since been taken. The Dallas Trade Mart thereby
became the most likely location for Kennedy's speech, with the route through
downtown to the Trade Mart, past the Texas School Book Depository, as the
most likely for the presidential motorcade.
In fact, the Trade Mart was secured by that most unlikely group of "friends"
of JFK, the Dallas Citizens Council, whose members' views were described by
the New York Times as "very conservative and range rightward." The council
had cosponsored the luncheon as a putative peace offering to JFK. Indeed, it
seems that JFK's itinerary in Dallas was circumscribed by the bottlers and the
Citizens Council.
The mere fact that eight thousand strangers had poured into Dallas in
the days before JFK's arrival should presumably have been of interest, yet
the Warren Commission ignored the event altogether.
Another interesting thing about the bottlers' convention is that the Army
Reserves volunteered to help facilitate an unusual extracurricular activity.
As noted in chapters 6 and 7, Poppy Bush's friend Jack Crichton was head of
a local Army Intelligence unit. Associates of Crichton's who were involved
with the Army Reserves had managed to get into the pilot car of Kennedy's
procession, with one as the driver. Crichton would also provide the interpreter
for Marina Oswald after her husband's arrest as the prime suspect in
Kennedy's murder.
According to a short item in the Dallas Morning News the day before
Kennedy was shot, members of the Dallas unit of the 90th Artillery Division
of the Army Reserve would be providing trucks and drivers to transport two
hundred orphans to a livestock arena for a rodeo sponsored by the bottlers'
group. This was to take place at nine P.M. on the night before Kennedy's arrival.
The arena was at Fair Park, near the site under which Crichton's Dallas
Civil Defense maintained its underground emergency bunker and communications
facility. Putting aside the Dickensian aspect of moving orphans in
Army trucks within an affluent American city, this raises some questions
about the reason for this odd maneuver. Whatever the true purpose of a small
platoon of Army vehicles being permitted to move about Dallas on purportedly
unrelated civilian business as the president's arrival was imminent, it appears
investigators never considered this incident worthy of a closer look.
Cumulatively, the bottlers' convention was responsible for a number of
curious circumstances that may be said to have some relevance to the
events surrounding Kennedy's death:
• The convention brought Nixon to Dallas.
• It brought eight thousand strangers to Dallas.
• It sent army vehicles into action on city streets the night before the
assassination.
• Its early reservation of one large venue helped determine Kennedy's
ultimate destination and thus the motorcade route.
In any event, as Nixon's adviser Stephen Hess has recounted, the former
vice president emerged deeply shaken about the timing of his Dallas visit. It
served to remind him that if he ever occupied the Oval Office, he too could
be vulnerable and targeted -- by the very same players. And his presence in
this incriminating spot was suggestive of wheels within wheels, to which he
of all people would have been alert. Were these intrigues what fueled President
Nixon's obsession with the CIA and its cloak-and-dagger activities in
the Kennedy era? This little-noted tug-of-war, a struggle over both current
policy and past history, would become an ongoing theme throughout Nixon's
term in office.
The Loyalist in Chief
At one time, Poppy Bush had worked hard to position himself as Richard
Nixon's most loyal servant. An example appeared in a 1971 profile of Poppy
in his role as Nixon's United Nations ambassador. Under the banner headline
"Bush Working Overtime," the Dallas Morning News of September 19,
1971, portrayed the ambassador as poised at the center of world affairs.
Leaning forward at his desk, a large globe next to him, his lean face bearing
a look of calm intensity, George H. W. Bush looked almost presidential.
The reporter for the Texas paper picked up on that. But he was equally
struck by Poppy's devotion to the sitting president. Ambassador Bush, he
noted, "is loyal -- some say to a fault -- to President Nixon, and frequently
quotes him in conversation."
It was the image Poppy wanted to convey. Even when the reporter asked
for his own views, he quickly deferred. "I like to think of myself as a pragmatist,
but I have learned to defy being labeled," Bush said. "What I can say
is that I am a strong supporter of the President."
Of course, when someone defies being labeled, it gives him extraordinary
flexibility to move in different circles, to collect information, to spin on
a dime -- in short, to behave a lot like a covert intelligence officer.
The image of Poppy as the ultimate loyalist was one he would project for
three more years -- right up to the final days of the Nixon presidency. Not
even Nixon, who was famously distrustful, seemed to doubt it. After winning
the 1972 election in the midst of the Watergate scandal, Nixon decided
to hedge his bets and clean house.
Planning to fire all but his most trusted aides, Nixon instructed Ehrlichman
to "eliminate everyone except George Bush. Bush will do anything for
our cause." This trust endured to the end of Nixon's presidency.
If indeed Bush was ever a Nixon loyalist, he certainly flipped the moment
the tide turned. This new stance emerged with the 1974 public release of
the transcript of Nixon's smoking gun conversation with Haldeman. As
Bush would record in his diary after Nixon's final cabinet meeting, the taped
conversation was irrefutable proof that "Nixon lied about his knowledge of
the cover-up of the Watergate scandal . . . I felt betrayed by his lie . . . I want
to make damn clear the lie is something we can't support."
Added Poppy: "This era of tawdry, shabby lack of morality has got to end."
This purported diary entry was most likely part of Poppy's perennial alibi
trail. It could have been Bush family tradecraft, something like Barbara's
Tyler, Texas, hair salon letter from November 22, 1963 -- always intended
for public view. Perhaps the most revealing part is the point at which Bush
summarizes the content of the smoking gun conversation. Poppy selectively
paraphrases a tiny part of that session, making it look as if Nixon had
ordered Haldeman (as Bush put it) to "block the FBI's investigation of the
Watergate break-in." This, Poppy asserted, "was proof [that] the President
had been involved, at least in the cover-up."
What Poppy omitted were two key things: that it was actually John Dean's
suggestion, not Nixon's, to block the investigation -- and that the CIA was at
the center of the intrigue to begin with.
Watergate's Unknown Prelude
The series of scandals that undid Richard Nixon's presidency are principally
identified with the 1972 burglary at the Democratic party offices in the Watergate
complex. But one could argue that Watergate -- and Nixon's
downfall -- really began in late 1969, during Nixon's first year in office, with
a phone call from a man almost no one today has heard of.
An independent oilman named John M. King dialed in to offer ideas for
improving Nixon's hold over Congress. Former White House staffer Jack
Gleason remembered the episode: "[King] called one day in '69 and said,
'You know, we have to start planning for 1970.' "
King's call suggested he was principally concerned about helping Nixon,
but in retrospect, there may have been more at stake. For one thing, King
was a member of the fraternity of independent oilmen who were growing
increasingly unhappy with Nixon. As we saw in the last chapter, the oil barons
were up in arms over threats to the oil depletion allowance, convinced that
Nixon was not solidly enough in their corner. But they had other gripes.
As Haldeman noted in a diary entry in December 1969: "Big problem persists
on oil import quotas. Have to make some decision, and can't win. If
we do what we should, and what the task force recommends, we'd apparently
end up losing at least a couple of senate seats, including George Bush in
Texas. Trying to figure out a way to duck the whole thing and shift it to Congress."
On a more personal level, King was mired in problems. The Denver-based
King had assembled a global empire with oil drilling and mining operations
in a hundred countries; he was known for a high-flying lifestyle and a gift
for leveraging connections. He even had two Apollo astronauts on
his board. In 1968, King had donated $750,000 to Nixon, and as a big donor,
his calls always got attention. But King was, according to a Time magazine
article of the period, something of a huckster. By late 1969, his empire
was on the verge of collapse. In the end, he would face jail and ruin.
Perhaps he was looking to secure intervention from the White House.
Perhaps it was just general business insurance. Or perhaps he was speaking
on behalf of his fellow in dependent oilmen.
In any event, King's pitch sounded like a good idea. He was proposing
that the Nixon White House funnel money from big GOP donors directly to
Senate and House candidates of its choice, rather than following the customary
method: letting the Republican Party determine the recipients. To do this
without provoking the wrath of the GOP establishment, King suggested
it be kept under wraps.
This idea appealed to the White House brass, and soon, a special operation
was being convened.
"As it matured, we had a couple of meetings with Ehrlichman and Haldeman
and went over some of the ground rules," said Gleason. Haldeman
brought the bare bones of the idea to Nixon, who thought it sounded fine.
Anything that involved secrecy and centralized White House control was
likely to find a receptive ear. Gleason's recollection is confirmed by a notation
in Haldeman's diary of December 11: "I had meeting with [Maurice]
Stans, Dent, and Gleason about setting up our own funding for backing the
good candidates in hot races. A little tricky to handle outside the RNC but
looks pretty good."
The White House political unit assigned the job of organizing and running
the new fund to its operative Gleason, an experienced GOP fundraiser.
Gleason was instructed by his boss, Harry Dent, to find an office for the operation.
When he suggested renting space in one of those prefurnished office
suites that come with secretarial and other services, he was told that this
would be too expensive.
That struck Gleason as odd, since it would not have cost much more and
would have been a pittance in relation to the large sums that would be
raised. But he followed his orders and rented something cheaper and more
discreet. Dent directed him to a townhouse on Nineteenth Street, in a residential
area near Dupont Circle. The space was not just in a townhouse but
in the basement of a townhouse. And not only that, it was in the back of the
basement. Reporters would later describe it as a "townhouse basement back
room" -- an arrangement guaranteed to raise eyebrows if ever discovered.
The way in which the funds were to be handled also struck Gleason as
unnecessarily complicated, and even furtive. While donors could simply --
and legally -- have written a single check to each candidate's campaign committee,
they were instructed instead to break up their donations into a number of
smaller checks. The checks were then routed through the townhouse,
where Gleason would pick them up and deposit them in a "Jack
Gleason, Agent" account at American Security and Trust Bank. Gleason
then would convert the amounts into cashier's checks and send them on to
the respective campaign committees, often further breaking each donation
up into smaller ones and spreading them over more than one campaign
committee of each candidate.
The ostensible reason for these complex arrangements was to enable the
White House to control the money. The actual effect, however, was to create
the impression of something illicit, such as a money-laundering operation
aimed at hiding the identities of the donors.
Somewhere along the way Gleason began to detect an odor stronger than
that of quotidian campaign operations. What seemed suspect to him was
not that Nixon would help Republican candidates -- that was how things
worked. What bothered him were the operational details. Many seemed
positively harebrained, the kind of things with which no president should be
associated. But Gleason just figured that Richard Nixon, or his subordinates,
had a blind spot when it came to appearances of impropriety.
Deep-Sixing Nixon
Late in the election season, Gleason's superiors told him to add a new component
to the Townhouse Operation. Gleason found this new development
particularly disturbing. It was called the "Sixes Project." Launched in October
1970, when the midterm elections were almost over, it provided an extra
personal donation of six thousand dollars to each of thirteen Senate
candidates -- in cash.
Gleason's job was simple enough: get on a plane, fly out to meet each of
the candidates, and personally hand over an envelope of cash. He was to add
a personal message: "Here's a gift from Dick and Pat." And he was to keep
meticulous receipts, noting who received the cash and the date of the transaction.
Gleason was not happy about his role as dispenser of envelopes full of
cash. As he told me in a 2008 interview,
Of all the silly things I've ever been asked to do in this life, traveling around with six thousand dollars to give the guy and say, "This is from Dick and Pat," was colossally bad . . . Now you crank me up, leave a paper trail a mile long and a mile wide of flight tickets, hotel reservations, rental cars, everything, and have me traipsing all over the country giving these guys six thousand dollars in cash, [and besides], the six thousand doesn't matter, doesn't get you anywhere. If we give you a quarter of a million, what's another six thousand? . . . The six thousand dollars itself was a disconnect, because everything else was largely done to keep the whole thing under wraps.
In those days, the campaign finance laws, most of which were at the state
level, were limited and rarely enforced. Reporting requirements were thin,
but those candidates who wanted to abide by the law made sure to report
any cash they received to their respective campaign committees. That posed
a challenge for a candidate caught in a grueling nonstop schedule, who was
handed an envelope of cash. It would be easy enough to forget to report it,
whether deliberately or accidentally.
Even back in 1973, Gleason could come to only one conclusion. When
special prosecutors in the Watergate investigation later grilled him about
the Townhouse Operation, he told them as much. "The purpose of these
contributions was to set up possible blackmail for these candidates later
on." However, at that point Gleason assumed that the sponsors of the
blackmail were Nixon loyalists -- perhaps even authorized by the president
himself.
Alarmed at this arrangement, and cognizant that he might be generating
myriad campaign law violations, Gleason asked the White House for a legal
analysis. But despite multiple requests, he never got it. Finally, he asked for
a letter stating that nothing he was being asked to do was illegal. (That letter,
Gleason later explained, would somehow disappear before it could arrive at
the offices of the Watergate prosecutors.)
Since the six-thousand-dollar donations were ostensibly generated by
"Dick and Pat," one could easily surmise that Richard Nixon, or those under
his authority, were indeed out to get something on Republican candidates.
Once they took the cash, the recipients would have to do as he wanted, or
else risk exposure. As Assistant Special Prosecutor Charles Ruff wrote to
his boss: "It has been our guess that [the Nixon White House] hoped to gain
some leverage over these candidates by placing cash in their hands which
they might not report."
Had this become known, Nixon would have had trouble explaining it.
Few would have believed that such a scheme could have been run under
White House auspices without Nixon's approval. And yet that seems to have
been the case. In fact, Nixon's name rarely appears in the Townhouse files of
Watergate prosecutors -- for whom the evidence of Nixon's wrongdoing
would have been the ultimate prize.
Even the complex and calculating Charles Colson, who served as special
counsel to the president in 1970, admitted to prosecutors that Nixon was
not involved. Colson said that he had sat in on a Townhouse planning meeting
and later briefed the president about "political prospects in that race" -
but "did not recall that the fundraising aspects were discussed with the
President."
John Mitchell, who was attorney general before he resigned in 1972 to
head up Nixon's reelection campaign, attended a meeting for "substantial
contributors" and later told prosecutors that "the President stopped by, but
was not present during discussions of campaign finances." Mitchell himself
denied participation in or knowledge of the Town house plan. Even
Herb Kalmbach, Nixon's personal lawyer, seems to have been involved only
in the most benign part of the operation: the legal solicitation of funds from
wealthy donors. Of course, all this could be about denials and deniability -
but as we shall see, it apparently was not.
Meet John Dean
At the time Town house was becoming operational, the position of counsel
to the president opened up. John Ehrlichman, Nixon's trusted aide, was
moving to head up domestic affairs, and Ehrlichman was looking for someone
to replace him -- a smart lawyer and good detail man who was also loyal
to the president. The man who came on board on July 27, 1970, was John
Wesley Dean III.
Dean arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue just as President Nixon was
trying to figure out how to deal with massive street demonstrations against
the Vietnam War. A month before, a White House staffer named Tom Huston
had drawn up a plan to spy on the demonstrators through electronic
surveillance, recruitment of campus informants, and surreptitious entry
into offices and meeting places.
In hindsight, this sounds especially odious, and it was, but at the time, and
from the vantage point of the administration and its supporters in the "silent
majority," America was besieged. The general atmosphere in the country
and the domestic violence, actual and hinted, surrounding the Vietnam War
debate, felt like chaos was descending. Even so, Attorney General John
Mitchell shot down the notorious "Huston Plan." John Dean, however, took
an immediate interest in some of the proposals.
Although his official duties centered on giving the president legal advice --
often on arcane technical matters -- Dean was considered a junior staffer and
had virtually no contact with Nixon. Nevertheless, the White House neophyte
quickly began taking on for himself the far edgier and dubious mantle of
political intelligence guru.
Among the bits of intelligence Dean collected were the details of the
Townhouse Operation. In November 1970, following the midterm elections,
Jack Gleason turned over all his files to the White House, where
Haldeman had them delivered to Dean. Watergate investigators would later
discover that "Haldeman also gave Dean several little notebooks which pertained
to the 1970 fundraising." Those little notebooks would have told Dean who the
donors were, how much they gave, and the identity of the recipients.
Shortly after the files ended up in Dean's hands, the media began
receiving -- perhaps coincidentally -- leaks about the Townhouse Operation.
One of the first reports was an AP article with no byline that appeared
in the New York Times on December 27, 1970. It said that seven
ambassadors had received their positions as rewards for their contributions
to the Townhouse Operation: "Mr. Jack Gleason left the staff of a
White House political operative, Harry Dent, this fall to run the fund-
raising campaign from a basement back office in a Washington townhouse."
And there it was: Gleason caught up in something that sounded
sinister, complete with the townhouse basement back office, all purportedly
on behalf of Richard Nixon.
In February 1972, someone cranked Townhouse back up again. Jim Polk,
an investigative reporter at the Washington Star with an impressive track
record on campaign finance matters, got more information about the fund
from "inside sources."
Polk published an article headlined "Obscure Lawyer Raises Millions for
Nixon." It sounded even more disturbing than the previous one. Polk's article
did two things: it introduced the public to Nixon's personal lawyer Kalmbach
and it provided many new details about the Townhouse fund.
A little-known lawyer in Newport Beach, Calif., has raised millions of dollars in campaign contributions as an unpublicized fund- raiser . . . [and] as Nixon's personal agent . . . to collect campaign checks from Republican donors Kalmbach helped to raise nearly $3 million in covert campaign money . . . The checks were sent through a townhouse basement used by former Nixon political aide Jack A. Gleason. But the operation was run from inside the White House by presidential assistant H.R. (Bob) Haldeman . . . Only a portion of this money has shown up on public records. The rest of the campaign checks have been funneled through dummy committees.
When I spoke to Polk in 2008, not surprisingly, he no longer recalled the
identity of his source. But whoever had leaked this story to him was no
friend of Nixon's. Yet if it was intended to provoke further interest, it failed.
Someone had attempted to light a fuse with Townhouse, but it did not ignite.
Just four months later, however, another fuse was lit. And this one would
burn on and on.
The Brazen Burglary
If Townhouse was engineered to discredit Nixon, it had one potential flaw.
The wrongdoing involved technical financial matters that reporters might
find daunting. Watergate, on the other hand, was inherently sexy; it had all
the elements of the crime drama it became. The break-in was brazen and
easily grasped, and carried out in such a manner as to just about guarantee
both failure and discovery. It also involved a cast of characters that neither
reporters nor television cameras could resist (as the Watergate hearings later
would demonstrate). It was like a made-for-TV movie: burglars in business
suits, living in a fancy suite near the scene of the crime; Cuban expatriates;
documents in pockets leading to the White House. Even Nixon had to interrupt
his reelection campaign to confront it.
But the burglars didn't appear to take anything, so what was the intended
crime? Breaking and entering -- for what purpose?
As with the JFK assassination, theories abound. The burglars were found
with bugging equipment. But that made little sense; Nixon didn't have
much to worry about from his presumed Democratic opponent, George
McGovern. The risks of a bugging operation far outweighed any conceivable
gains. And if Nixon had really wanted inside dope on the McGovern
campaign, which he hardly needed, he could have sent teams into McGovern's
headquarters up on Capitol Hill, or to Miami, where the Democrats
would hold their convention.
If, on the other hand, the intent was to fire the public imagination, the
Watergate complex was far better -- and Washington itself a necessary locale
if the national press was to stay with the story week after week.
With all this in mind, Nixon's observation in his memoirs that "the whole
thing was so senseless and bungled that it almost looked like some kind of
a setup" seems on the mark.
If the Cubans were really trying to do the job, their supervisors were
guilty of malpractice. They might as well have called the D.C. police to reserve
an interrogation room.
The flubs were so obvious it was as if they were the work of amateurs --
which it was not. Burglary team member James McCord left tape horizontally
over a lock, so that it could be spotted, as it was, by a security guard
when the door was closed. If he had taped the lock vertically, it would have
been invisible to a passerby. And if the intent was to pull off a real burglary,
there was no need for tape anyway -- as the burglars were already inside.
Even so, after the security guard discovered and removed the tape, McCord
put it right back.
The entire operation reflected poor judgment. An experienced burglar
would have known not to carry any sort of identification, and certainly not
identification that led back to the boss. How elementary is that? Among the
incriminating materials found on the Watergate burglars was a check with
White House consultant E. Howard Hunt's signature on it -- and Hunt's
phone number at the White House, in addition to checks drawn on Mexican
bank accounts. Despite the obvious risks, the burglars were also instructed
by Hunt to register at the Watergate Hotel, and to keep their room keys in
their pockets during the mission. These keys led investigators straight back
to an array of incriminating evidence, not the least damaging of which was
a suitcase containing the burglars' ID cards. Everything pointed back to
CREEP and the White House.
The most interesting thing was that the materials identified the burglars
as connected not just to the White House, but to the CIA as well. And not
just to the CIA, but to a group within the CIA that had been active during
the controversial period that included the Bay of Pigs invasion and the
assassination of JFK.
Hunt, whose status in the CIA was described earlier, was a high-ranking
(GS-15) officer and a member of the "Plumbers," a White House special
investigations unit ostensibly dedicated to stopping government leaks to the
media. As discussed in chapter 6, Hunt had been a key player in the coup in
Guatemala and the Bay of Pigs invasion, in addition to working very closely
with Allen Dulles himself. As noted previously, Dulles was in Dallas shortly
before November 22.
And Hunt had been there on the very day of the assassination, according
to an account confirmed in 1978 by James Angleton, the longtime CIA
counterintelligence chief. Angleton, clearly concerned that investigations
would uncover Hunt's presence in Dallas anyway, went so far as to alert a
reporter and a House Committee to Hunt's being in the city that day, and
then opined that Hunt had been involved in unauthorized activities while
there; 'Some very odd things were going on that were out of our control."
Watergate burglar and electronic surveillance expert James McCord, like
Hunt, had also been a GS-15 agent, serving for over a decade in the CIA's
Office of Security. Around the time of the Kennedy assassination, he began
working with anti-Castro Cubans on a possible future invasion of the island.
Allen Dulles once introduced McCord to an Air Force colonel, saying,
"This man is the best man we have." Regarding Nixon, McCord dismissed
him to a colleague as not a team player, not "one of us."
In a long-standing tradition, both Hunt and McCord had officially "resigned"
from the agency prior to the Watergate time frame. But their continued
involvement in CIA-related cover operations suggested otherwise.
Indeed, as noted earlier in the book, many figures, including Poppy Bush's
oil business colleague Thomas J. Devine, officially took retirement prior to
participating in seemingly independent operations in which deniability was
crucial.
Though Hunt claimed to have cut his CIA ties, he actually went out of
his way to draw attention to those ties while working in the Nixon White
House. He ostentatiously ordered a limousine to drive him from the
White House out to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. It was as though
he was trying to broadcast the notion that Nixon was working closely with
the agency -- with which, as we now know, the president was in reality battling.
After Hunt's alleged retirement, he was employed at the Mullen Company,
a public relations firm that served as a CIA cover. In a 1973 memo, Charles
Colson recounted a meeting he'd just had with Senate Republican minority
leader Howard Baker. Charles Colson wrote, "Baker said that the Mullen
Company was a CIA front, that [Hunt's] job with the Mullen Company was
arranged by [CIA director] Helms personally." Baker also informed Colson
that, during Hunt's time at the Mullen Company, his pay had been adjusted to
the exact salary he would have been making had he stayed at the spy agency.
Eugenio Martinez, one of the anti-Castro Cuban burglars, was another
CIA operative in the break-in crew. Indeed, he was the one member of the
team who remained actively on the CIA payroll, filing regular reports on the
activities of the team to his Miami case officer. Then there was Bernard L.
Barker, who first worked as an FBI in formant before being turned over to
the CIA during the run-up to the Bay of Pigs. Frank Sturgis, too, had CIA
connections. Martinez, Barker, and Sturgis had worked with Hunt and Mc-
Cord on the Second Naval Guerrilla operation.
So Nixon, who had been trying to see the CIA's file on the Bay of Pigs,
was now staring at a burglary purportedly carried out in his name by veterans
of the same "Bay of Pigs thing" with strong CIA ties. It was like a flashing
billboard warning. CIA professionals, Cuban exiles, all tied to the events
of 1961 through 1963, suddenly appearing in the limelight and tying themselves
and their criminal activity to the president.
If most of us ever knew, we have probably long since forgotten that before
the June 1972 Watergate break-in, there was another Watergate break-in
by the same crew. With this earlier one, though, they were careful to avoid
detection and were not caught. At that time, they installed listening devices.
The second burglary, the one that seemingly was designed for detection,
and designed to be traced back to the Nixon White House, ostensibly revolved
around removing listening devices installed earlier -- and therefore drawing
attention to the devices and the surveillance.
The conclusion one would likely draw from their being caught red-handed
is that Dick Nixon is up to yet another manifestation of his twisted and illegal
inclinations. And what were they listening to? Purportedly, DNC personnel
were arranging for "dates" for distinguished visitors with a call-girl ring. The
ring was operating from down the street, not far from where the bugs were
being monitored. The conclusion is that Nixon was perhaps trying to sexually
blackmail the Democrats. It got more and more objectionable.
But the fact is that no evidence shows Nixon wanting to sexually blackmail
Democrats, nor wanting to install bugs at the DNC, nor wanting to
order a burglary to remove the bugs. Yet somebody else clearly had a good
imagination, and a talent for executing a script that was magnificently inculpatory
of someone who would appear to deserve removal from the highest
office in the land.
Eventually, Americans would learn that the Watergate break-ins were
not the first such operation that made Nixon look bad, and not the first coordinated
by Hunt and featuring Cuban veterans of the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Back in September 1971, the team hit the Beverly Hills office of Dr.
Lewis Fielding, the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the whistle-blower who
leaked the explosive Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. First, though,
Nixon, who was initially indifferent over the leak, was persuaded to take on
the Times for publishing the documents, a posture that would position him
as a foe of public disclosure. It also escalated his already adversarial relationship
with the news media -- a relationship that would become a severe
disadvantage to Nixon as the Watergate "revelations" began to emerge.
Nixon was also persuaded to authorize the formation of a leak-busting
White House group, which was soon dubbed "the Plumbers." Soon, purportedly
operating on Nixon's behalf -- but without his actual approval -- the
Hunt team broke into Dr. Fieldingís office, having been told to photograph
Ellsberg's patient files.
However, as with Watergate, the burglary appears to have had an ulterior
motive. Senator Baker, ranking Republican on the Senate Watergate Committee,
learned of this, according to White House special counsel Charles
Colson, when Baker interviewed the Cuban émigré Eugenio Martinez, who
participated in the burglaries of both Fielding's office and the DNC office in
Watergate:
Baker told me of his interview with Martinez who said that there were no patient records in Dr. Fielding's office, that he, Martinez, was very disappointed when they found nothing there, but Hunt on the other hand seemed very pleased and as a matter of fact broke out a bottle of champagne when the three men returned from the job. Martinez says that he has participated in three hundred or four hundred similar CIA operations, that this was clearly a 'cover' operation with no intention of ever finding anything.
In fact, though the burglars were ostensibly seeking records while on a
covert mission, they did not act like people who wished to avoid discovery. In
addition to smashing the windows and prying open the front door with a crowbar,
the burglars proceeded to vandalize the office, scattering papers, pills, and
files across the floor. The result was to ensure the generation of a crime report,
establishing a record of the burglary. The break-in would not become public
knowledge until John Dean dramatically revealed it two years later --
and implicitly tied Nixon to it by citing the involvement of Egil Krogh, the man in
charge of Nixon's so-called Plumbers unit.
Dean and his lawyers showed far greater enthusiasm for pursuing the
Beverly Hills break-in than even the prosecutors. As Renata Adler wrote in
the New Yorker: "Dean's attorney, Charles Shaffer, practically had to spell it
out to [the prosecutors] that they would be taking part in an obstruction of
justice themselves if they did not pass the information on."
Like Watergate, the Fielding office break-in was on its face a very bad idea
that was not approved by Nixon but certain to deeply embarrass him and
damage his public standing when it was disclosed. The principal accomplishment
of the break-in was to portray Nixon as a man who had no decency
at all -- purportedly even stooping to obtain private psychiatric records
of a supposed foe. This was almost guaranteed to provoke public revulsion.
The notion that a group surrounding the president could be working to
do him in might sound preposterous to most of us. But not to veterans of
America's clandestine operations, where the goal abroad has often been to
do just that. And Nixon was a perfect target: solitary, taciturn, with few
friends, and not many more people he trusted. Because of this, he had to
hire virtual strangers in the White House, and as a result, the place was
teeming with schemers. Nixon was too distrustful, and yet not distrustful
enough. It was supremely ironic. Nixon, ridiculed for his irrational hatred
and "paranoia" toward the Eastern Establishment, may in the end have been
done in by forces controlled by that very establishment. Of course, it was
nothing less than that level of power to remove presidents, plural, one after
the other if necessary.
Among the myriad plots was the so-called Moorer-Radford affair, cited in
chapter 9, in which the military actually was spying on Nixon and stealing
classified documents in an attempt to gain inside information, influence
policy, and perhaps even unseat the president.
That Nixon could actually have been the victim of Watergate, and not the
perpetrator, will not sit well with many, especially those with a professional
stake in Nixon's guilt. Yet three of the most thoroughly reported books on
Watergate from the past three decades have come to the same conclusion:
that Nixon and/or his top aides were indeed set up. Each of these books takes
a completely different approach, focuses on different aspects, and relies on
essentially different sets of facts and sources. These are 1984's Secret Agenda,
by former Harper's magazine Washington editor Jim Hougan; 1991's Silent
Coup, by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin; and 2008's The Strong Man, by
James Rosen.
Rosen's The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate is a biography
of Nixon's close friend, attorney general, and campaign chief, the
highest-ranking official ever to be sentenced to prison. The book, on which
Rosen labored for seventeen years, is based on sources not previously interviewed
and also on unprecedented access to documents generated by the Senate
Watergate Committee and Watergate special prosecutors. Rosen asserts
that the Watergate operation was authorized behind Mitchell's back by his
subordinate Jeb Magruder and by John Dean and was deliberately sabotaged
in its execution by burglar and former CIA officer James McCord. As Rosen
puts it:
Mitchell knew he had been set up. In later years, his mind reeled at the singular confluence of amazing characters that produced Watergate -- Dean, Magruder, Liddy, Helms, Hunt, McCord, Martinez -- and reckoned himself and the president, neither of whom enjoyed foreknowledge of the Watergate break-in, victims in the affair. "The more I got into this," Mitchell said in June 1987, "the more I see how these sons of bitches have not only done Nixon in but they've done me in."
Rosen also writes:
The [Watergate] tapes unmasked Nixon not as the take-charge boss of a criminal conspiracy but rather as an aging and confused politician lost in a welter of detail, unable to distinguish his Magruders from his Strachans, uncertain who knew what and when, what each player had told the grand jury, whose testimony was direct, whose hearsay.
My independent research takes the argument one step further, and the facts in a completely
new direction. It leads to an even more disturbing conclusion as to what
was really going on, and why.
Woodward at His Post
The accepted narrative of Nixon as the villain of Watergate is based largely on
the work of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They both were young reporters
on the Washington Post's Metro desk when the story fell into their
laps.
When it was over, they were household names. Woodward in particular would
go on to become the nation's most visible investigative journalist, and indeed
the iconic representation of that genre. The work of "Woodstein" would play a
key role in enhancing the franchise of the Post itself. Yet this oeuvre -- in
particular the role of Woodward -- has become somewhat suspect among those
who have taken a second and third look -- including Columbia Journalism
Review contributing editor Steve Weinberg, in a November/December 1991
article.
Woodward did not fit the profile of the typical daily print reporter. Young,
midwestern, Republican, he attended Yale on an ROTC scholarship and
then spent five years in the Navy. He had begun with a top-secret security
clearance on board the USS Wright, specializing in communications, including
with the White House.
His commanding officer was Rear Admiral Robert O. Welander, who
would later be implicated in the military spy ring in the Nixon White
House, mentioned in chapter 9. According to Silent Coup, an exhaustive
study of the military espionage scandal, Woodward then arrived in Washington,
where he worked on the staff of Admiral Thomas Moorer, chief of naval
operations, again as a communications officer, this time one who provided
briefings and documents to top brass in the White House on national security
matters. According to this account, in 1969-70, Woodward frequently
walked through the basement offices of the White House West Wing with
documents from Admiral Moorer to General Alexander Haig, who served
under Henry Kissinger.
In a 2008 interview, Woodward categorically denied having any intelligence
connections. He also denied having worked in the White House or
providing briefings there. "It's a matter of record in the Navy what I did,
what I didn't do," Woodward said. "And this Navy Intelligence, Haig and so
forth, you know, I'd be more than happy to acknowledge it if it's true. It just
isn't. Can you accept that?"
Journalist Len Colodny, however, has produced audiotapes of interviews
by his Silent Coup coauthor, Robert Gettlin, with Admiral Moorer, former defense
secretary Melvin Laird, Pentagon spokesman Jerry Friedheim -- and
even with Woodward's own father, Al -- speaking about Bob's White House
service.
At a minimum, Woodward's entry into journalism received a valuable
outside assist, according to an account provided by Harry Rosenfeld, a retired
Post editor, to the Saratogian newspaper in 2004:
Bob had come to us on very high recommendations from someone in the White House. He had been an intelligence officer in the Navy and had served in the Pentagon. He had not been exposed to any newspaper. We gave him a tryout because he was so highly recommended. We customarily didn't do that. We wanted to see some clips, and he had none of that. We tried him out, and after a week or two I asked my deputy, "What's with this guy?" And he said well, he's a very bright guy but he doesn't know how to put the paper in the typewriter. But he was bright, there was that intensity about him and his willingness, and he acted maturely. So we decided because he had come so highly recommended and he had shown certain strengths that we would help get him a job at the Montgomery County Sentinel.
In 2008, some time after I spoke to Woodward, I reached Rosenfeld. He
said he did not recall telling the Saratogian that Woodward had been hired
on the advice of someone in the White House. He did, however, tell me that
he remembered that Woodward had been recommended by Paul Ignatius,
the Post's president. Prior to taking over the Post's presidency, Ignatius had
been Navy secretary for President Johnson.
In a 2008 interview, Ignatius told me it was possible that he had a hand
in at least recommending Woodward. "It's possible that somebody asked
me about him, and it's possible that I gave him a recommendation," Ignatius
said. "I don't remember initiating anything, but I can't say I didn't." I
asked Ignatius how a top Pentagon administrator such as himself would
even have known of a lowly lieutenant, such as Woodward was back in
those days, and Ignatius said he did not recall.
In September 1971, after one year of training at the Maryland-based Sentinel,
Woodward was hired at the Washington Post . The Post
itself is steeped
in intelligence connections. The paper's owner, the Graham family, were, as
noted in chapter 3, aficionados of the apparatus, good friends of top spies,
and friends also of Prescott Bush. They even helped fund Poppy Bush's earliest
business venture. Editor Ben Bradlee was himself a Yale graduate who,
like Woodward, had spent time in naval intelligence during World War II.
(As noted earlier, Poppy Bush had also been associated with naval intelligence
during World War II: prior to beginning his work with the CIA, he had
been involved with top-secret aerial reconnaissance photography.)
Woodward demonstrated his proclivity for clandestine sources a month
before the Watergate break-in, in his coverage of the shooting and serious
wounding of presidential candidate George Wallace at a shopping center in
Washington's Maryland suburbs. A lone gunman, Arthur Bremer, would be
convicted. Woodward impressed his editors with his tenacity on the case,
and his contacts. As noted in a journalistic case study published by Columbia
University:
At the time, according to [Post editors Barry] Sussman and [Harry]
Rosenfeld, Woodward said he had "a friend" who might be able to
help. Woodward says his "friend" filled him in on Bremer's background
and revealed that Bremer had also been stalking other
presidential candidates.
As to Woodward's initial introduction to the newspaper, nobody seems to
have questioned whether a recommendation from someone in the White
House would be an appropriate reason for the Post to hire a reporter. Nor
does anyone from the Post appear to have put a rather obvious two and two
together, and noted that Woodward made quick work of bringing down the
president, and therefore wondered who at the White House recommended
Woodward in the first place -- and with what motivation.
Others, however, were more curious. After Charles Colson met with Senator
Howard Baker and his staff -- including future senator Fred Thompson --
he recounted the session in a previously unpublished memo to file:
The CIA has been unable to determine whether Bob Woodward was employed by the agency. The agency claims to be having difficulty checking personnel files. Thompson says that he believes the delay merely means that they don't want to admit that Woodward was in the agency. Thompson wrote a lengthy memo to Baker last week complaining about the CIA's non-cooperation, the fact that they were supplying material piecemeal and had been very uncooperative. The memo went into the CIA relationship with the press, specifically Woodward. Senator Baker sent the memo directly to [CIA Director] Colby with a cover note and within a matter of a few hours, Woodward called Baker and was incensed over the memo. It had been immediately leaked to him.
Woodward's good connections would help generate a series of exclusive-
access interviews that would result in rapidly produced bestselling books.
One was Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987, a controversial book
that relied in part, Woodward claimed, on a deathbed interview -- not
recorded -- with former CIA director William Casey. The 543-page book,
which came out as Poppy Bush was seeking the presidency, contained no
substantive mentions of any role on the part of Bush in these "secret wars,"
though Bush was both vice president with a portfolio for covert ops and a
former CIA director.
Asked how it was possible to leave Bush out of such a detailed account of
covert operations during his vice presidency, Woodward replied, "Bush was,
well, I don't think he was -- What was it he said at the time? I was out of the
loop?" Woodward went on to be blessed with unique access to George W.
Bush -- a president who did not grant a single interview to America's top
newspaper, the New York Times, for nearly half his administration -- and the
automatic smash bestsellers that guaranteed. Woodward would also distinguish
himself for knowing about the administration's role in leaking the
identity of CIA undercover officer Valerie Plame but not writing or saying
anything about it, despite an ongoing investigation and media tempest.
When this was revealed, Woodward issued an apology to the Post.
To its credit, the Washington Post in these years had other staffers doing
some of the best reporting on the intelligence establishment. Perhaps the
most revealing work came prior to Nixon's tenure, while Woodward was still
doing his naval service. In a multipart, front-page series by Richard Harwood
in early 1967, the paper began reporting the extent to which the CIA
had penetrated civil institutions not just abroad, but at home as well. "It was
not enough for the United States to arm its allies, to strengthen governmental
institutions, or to finance the industrial establishment through economic
and military programs," Harwood wrote. "Intellectuals, students, educators,
trade unionists, journalists and professional men had to be reached directly
through their private concerns." Journalists too. Even Carl Bernstein later
wrote about the remarkable extent of the CIA's penetration of newsrooms,
detailing numerous examples, in a 1977 Rolling Stone article. As for the Post
itself, Bernstein wrote:
When Newsweek was purchased by the
Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press. Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graham, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.
In 1965-66, an accredited Newsweek stringer in the Far East was in fact a CIA contract employee earning an annual salary of $10,000 from the Agency, according to Robert T. Wood, then a CIA officer in the Hong Kong station. Some Newsweek correspondents and stringers continued to maintain covert ties with the Agency into the 1970s, CIA sources said.
Information about Agency dealings with the Washington Post newspaper is extremely sketchy. According to CIA officials, some Post stringers have been CIA employees, but these officials say they do not know if anyone in the Post management was aware of the arrangements.
When the Watergate burglary story broke, Bob Woodward got the assignment,
in part, his editor Barry Sussman recalled, because he never
seemed to leave the building. "I worked the police beat all night," Wood-
ward said in an interview with authors Tom Rosenstiel and Amy S.
Mitchell, "and then I'd go home -- I had an apartment five blocks from the
Post -- and sleep for a while. I'd show up in the newsroom around 10 or 11
[in the morning] and work all day too. People complained I was working too
hard." So when the bulletin came in, Woodward was there. The result was
a front-page account revealing that E. Howard Hunt's name appeared in the
address book of one of the burglars and that a check signed by Hunt had
been found in the pocket of another burglar, who was Cuban. It went further:
Hunt, Woodward reported, worked as a consultant to White House counsel
Charles Colson.
Thus, Woodward played a key role in tying the burglars to Nixon.
Woodward would later explain in All the President's Men (coauthored with
Bernstein) that to find out more about Hunt, he had "called an old friend
and sometimes source who worked for the federal government." His friend
did not like to be contacted at this office and "said hurriedly that the break-
in case was going to 'heat up,' but he couldn't explain and hung up." Thus
began Woodward's relationship with Deep Throat, that mysterious source
who, Woodward would later report, served in the executive branch of government
and had access to information in the White House and CREEP.
Based on tips from Deep Throat, Woodward and Bernstein began to "follow
the money," writing stories in September and October 1972 on a political
"slush fund" linked to CREEP. One story reported that the fund had
financed the bugging of the Democratic Party's Watergate headquarters as
well as other intelligence-gathering activities. While Nixon coasted to a
landslide victory over the liberal Democrat George McGovern, the story
seemed to go on hiatus. But just briefly.
Poppy Enters, Stage Right
If someone did want to undermine the president from outside the White
House, he couldn't have found a better perch than the chairmanship of the
Republican Party.
Right after the election, Poppy Bush, again utilizing his pull with Nixon,
had persuaded the president to bring him back from his cushy U.N. post
and install him at the Republican National Committee. This put him at the
very epicenter of the nationwide Republican elite that would ultimately
determine whether Nixon would stay or go.
As chairman of the RNC, Poppy was expected to be the president's chief
advocate, especially to the party faithful. He would travel widely, interact
with big donors and party activists. If anyone would have their finger on the
pulse of the loyalist base, it was Poppy. He would have a good sense of what
would keep supporters in line, and conversely, what might convince them to
abandon ship.
But Poppy was unique among RNC chairmen over the years in that he
had convinced Nixon to let him maintain an official presence at the White
House. Just as Nixon had permitted him to participate in cabinet meetings
as U.N. ambassador, he now continued to extend that privilege while Poppy
ran the RNC. This was unprecedented for someone in such an overtly partisan
position.
Here was a man closely connected to the CIA, as we have seen, now both
running the Republican Party and sitting in on cabinet deliberations. An
intelligence officer couldn't have asked for a better perch. Moreover, this put
him in the catbird seat just as Watergate began heating up.
But Poppy was even more wired into Nixonworld. When he came to the
RNC, he hired Harry Dent and Tom Lias, the top officials of Nixon's Political
Affairs office, which had established the Town house Operation. Dent was
the architect of Nixon's Southern strategy, with which Poppy Bush and his
backers were closely allied. Lias had ties to Poppy from before working in
the White House. He had been a top organizer for the Republican Congressional
Campaign Committee, strategizing how to elect people like Poppy to
formerly Democratic seats in the South.
After Poppy came to Washington, the two often socialized. According to
Pierre Ausloos, stepfather of Lias's daughter, and a friend of the family, "On
weekends, Bush would always invite [Lias] for a barbecue party at his house
here in Washington." Ausloos also remembers that during the 1968
Republican convention, Liasís daughter's babysitter was Poppy's son, George
W. Bush.
Thus, at the time Dent and Lias were installed in the White House Political
Affairs office, they were already close with Bush. Indeed, right after the
1970 election and the termination of the Town house Operation, Bush took
Lias with him to New York, where Lias served as a top aide on Poppy's
United Nations staff. The U.N. choice struck people who knew Lias as odd.
Lias had no relevant qualifications or knowledge for the U.N. post, just as
Poppy himself didn't.
Poppy's decision, once he moved to the RNC, to hire both Lias and
Dent -- the two men supervising Jack Gleason's Town house Operation --
is surely significant.
Meanwhile, Poppy Bush and his team had already been in contact with
John Dean.
In a brief 2008 conversation, in which a prickly Dean sought to control
the conditions of the interview, I asked him whether he had any dealings
with Bush. "I think there are some phone calls on my phone logs, but I
never met with him personally," he said.
Indeed, phone logs show that on June 24, 1971, Ambassador Bush called
Dean, and on December 6, 1971, Tom Lias of Ambassador Bush's office
called. The logs show other calls from Lias as well. It is not clear -- nor did
Dean volunteer an opinion -- why Bush and Lias would have been calling
him at all.
Slumming in Greenwich
When the Senate created a committee to investigate Watergate, there was no
guarantee that anything would come of it. The perpetrators -- the burglars
and their supervisors, Hunt and Liddy -- were going on trial, and it was uncertain
whether the hearings would produce any further insights. Moreover,
the committee featured four rather somnolent Democrats and three Republicans,
two of them staunch Nixon loyalists.
This left only one wild card: Lowell Weicker, a liberal Republican from
Connecticut.
A freshman, and an independent one, Weicker was not disposed to knee-
jerk defense of Nixon. Furthermore, he saw himself as a crusader. At six feet
six, Weicker was imposing, considered basically well-intentioned, a little
naive, and in love with publicity. He had gotten his political start in the
Bush hometown of Greenwich, Connecticut; and like the Bushes, he was
heir to a family fortune, in his case from two grandfathers who owned the
Squibb pharmaceutical company.
But there the similarities ended. Weicker chose for his base Greenwich's
Third Voting District, which consisted almost entirely of working-class
Italians. "Just decent, hard-working, down-to-basics families," Weicker
would say. "Had I been raised as a typical Republican in the salons of Fair-
field County, discussing international issues at teas and cocktail parties,
I know my career would have been a short one once off the Greenwich
electoral scene." In 1960, Weicker aligned himself with Albert Morano,
a congressional candidate opposed by the Bush family. Now the Bushes
saw Weicker as a traitor to his class. Over the years, Weicker and Bush
would generally maintain a cool but civil relationship, driven by political
expediency.
"I think he was viewed as an outsider from day one, and it was a perspective
he relished," said Townhouse operative Jack Gleason. "Because he
always used to joke about 'the Round Hill boys out to get me again' every
time he was up for reelection."
Weicker had arrived in Washington in 1968, following his election to the
House of Representatives. Given the past, this would have made him a
not-very-welcome colleague of Poppy Bush. And Poppy probably was not
enthused when, after only two years in the House, Weicker was elected
to Prescott Bush's old Senate seat -- in the same year Poppy lost his second
Senate bid. Weicker's star was rising faster than Poppy's -- and in the Bush
home state to boot. It must have rankled.
Still, Weicker's least endearing qualities -- his considerable ambition,
love of publicity, and penchant for self-aggrandizement -- would shortly
prove useful in at least one respect: as a champion of the "truth" on the
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, commonly
known as the Watergate Committee. The same Republican maverick who
had no qualms about challenging his party's leadership in Connecticut
would soon debut his maverick persona on the national stage.
In his memoirs, Weicker writes that he was given the Watergate Committee
assignment because he was one of only two Republicans who volunteered
and that his interest in "campaign financing" and dwindling faith in
the democratic process spurred his personal interest. Interestingly, the
other Republican volunteer, stalwart conservative Edward J. Gurney of Florida,
had won his seat with the help of Bush's top political lieutenant, Jimmy
Allison -- and eldest son George W. Bush, who took the extraordinary step of
securing a leave from his National Guard unit in 1968, when he had barely
begun his military training. The other Republican on the committee was Minority
Leader Howard Baker, a moderate. Weicker was the only Republican
on the committee with the inclination to prove his independence from the
party and openly challenge the president.
By the spring of 1973, six defendants had been sentenced in the DNC burglary,
and the Watergate hearings were due to begin. There was now an opportunity
for Nixon to put the whole Watergate affair behind him, without
mortal damage to his presidency. Weicker, however, already saw his role as
an honest broker, and he criticized Nixon's attempts at tamping down the
matter. "I think the national interest is achieved by opening, not closing, the
White House doors," he said. He added that he would vote in favor of subpoenas
for White House officials to appear before the committee.
Poppy Bush apparently agreed. On March 20, the day after Weicker's remarks,
Poppy went to see Nixon at the Oval Office. In his usual oblique way,
ascribing his advice to others, he urged Nixon to send John Dean to testify.
BUSH: We're getting hit a little bit, Mr. President . . . It's building, and the mail's getting heavier . . . NIXON: What do you think you can do about it? . . . We've got hearings coming up. The hearings will make it worse. BUSH: . . . I was speaking with the executives at the Bull Elephants The guy said to me, why doesn't the President send Dean? . . . The disclosure is what they're calling for. NIXON: We are cooperating They don't want any cooperation. They aren't interested in getting the facts. They're only interested in [politicalgains?] I wish there were an answer to Watergate, but I just don't know any . . . I don't know a damn thing to do. [emphasis added]
John Ehrlichman remembers that meeting well, as noted in his memoirs.
"Bush argued that the only way to blunt the current onslaught in the newspapers
and on television was for the president to be totally forthcoming -- to
tell everything he knew about all aspects of Watergate."
This was a significant moment, where Poppy demonstrates a possible
connection to and interest in Dean. It was a sort of specific advice that warrants
attention, because it is an indication that the outsider Bush is unusually
well informed about who knows what inside the White House --
and encourages Nixon to let Dean begin confessing his knowledge. When I
asked Dean in 2008 why he thought Poppy Bush was suggesting he testify,
he said he had no idea.
Nixon resisted Poppy's advice to have Dean testify because, Nixon maintained,
there was no White House staff involvement in Watergate, and
therefore Dean's testimony would serve only to break executive privilege,
once and for all. "The president can't run his office by having particularly
his lawyer go up and testify," Nixon told Poppy.
If Poppy Bush seemed to have unusually good intelligence as to what
was happening in the Oval Office, it might have had something to do with
a good friend of his who was right in there with Nixon and Dean during the
most critical days of Watergate. Richard A. Moore, a lawyer who served as a
kind of elder statesman off of whom Nixon and Mitchell could bounce
ideas, was, like Poppy, an alumnus of Andover, Yale, and Skull and Bones.
Moore served as special assistant to the chief of military intelligence during
World War II and is believed to have transitioned to civilian intelligence
after the war. Over the years, Moore was practically a member of the
extended Bush clan, exchanging intimate notes with Poppy and even joining
family dinners.
Moore shows up in background roles on a number of Nixon tapes, and
phone logs show a flurry of phone calls between Moore and Dean, especially
in the final weeks before Dean turned on Nixon. In a little-reported taped telephone
conversation from March 16, Dean tells Nixon that he and Moore are
working on a Watergate report; he also mentions that he and Moore drive
home together. On March 20, in an Oval Office meeting featuring Nixon,
Dean, and Moore -- just prior to Nixon's meeting with Poppy Bush --
Moore can be heard typing the report in the background.
Dean would later write that the term "cancer" as used in his famous "cancer
on the presidency" briefing had been suggested by Moore -- who though a close
Nixon adviser in these sensitive days, managed to emerge from Watergate
obscure and unscathed. His Watergate testimony did not support Dean, but
he tended to be ambiguous. As Time magazine noted on July 23, 1973,
"The Moore testimony was certainly not evidence that the President
had had prior knowledge of the Plumbers' felonious break-in. But it seemingly
betrayed a curious nonchalance on the President's part toward questionable
activities by White House staffers."
Later, with Nixon departing and Ford preparing to become president,
Moore urged Ford to make Poppy Bush his vice president, arguing that
Bush had strong economic credentials. Moore specifically cited Poppy's ties
to Wall Street through his father and grandfather, "both highly respected investment
bankers in New York." Moore would go on to work on all of Poppy
Bush's presidential campaigns, including his unsuccessful 1980 bid, and
would in 1989 be named by Poppy as his ambassador to Ireland.
Repeat After Me
Immediately after Poppy tried to convince Nixon to send Dean to testify,
Dean himself telephoned the president. Dean asked to urgently meet the
following morning and carefully explained to Nixon that there were important
details of which the president was unaware and that he would tell him
about these things -- but did not yet tell him:
DEAN: I think that one thing that we have to continue to do, and particularly right now, is to examine the broadest, broadest implications of this whole thing, and, you know, maybe about thirty minutes of just my recitations to you of facts so that you operate from the same facts that everybody else has. NIXON: Right. DEAN: I don't think -- we have never really done that. It has been sort of bits and pieces. Just paint the whole picture for you, the soft spots, the potential problem areas [emphasis added]
In other words, Dean was admitting, nine months into the scandal, that
he knew quite a bit about Watergate that he had never revealed to the president.
Now Dean planned to clue him in.
Nixon then inquired about the progress on a public statement Dean was
to be preparing -- and was made to understand that the statement was going
to try to avoid specifics, i.e., employ a common practice, stonewalling:
NIXON: And so you are coming up, then with the idea of just a stonewall then? Is that -- DEAN: That's right. NIXON: Is that what you come down with? DEAN: Stonewall, with lots of noises that we are always willing to cooperate, but no one is asking us for anything.
Nixon went on to pressure Dean to issue a statement to the cabinet explaining,
in very general terms, the White House's willingness to cooperate in any
investigations. Without going into detail, Nixon wanted to publicly defend the
innocence of White House officials whom he believed were innocent:
NIXON: I just want a general -- DEAN: An all-around statement. NIXON: That's right. Try just something general. Like "I have checked into this matter; I can categorically, based on my investigation, the following: Haldeman is not involved in this, that and the other thing. Mr. Colson did not do this; Mr. So- and- so did not do this. Mr. Blank did not do this." Right down the line, taking the most glaring things. If there are any further questions, please let me know. See? DEAN: Uh huh, I think we can do that.
But Dean apparently didn't intend to "do that." He was seemingly waiting
for the right moment to create the right effect -- and that moment would not
come until he had jumped the wall to the other side and become the key witness
for the prosecution.
In Haldemans diary entry of the same day, he observes that Nixon wants
to come clean, but that Dean is warning him not to:
[The president] feels strongly that we've got to say something to get ourselves away from looking like we're completely on the defensive and on a cover-up basis. If we . . . are going to volunteer to send written statements . . . we might as well do the statements now and get them publicized and get our answers out. The problem is that Dean feels this runs too many leads out. [emphasis added]
Thus, according to this account, Nixon was interested in facing his problems.
This included, it appears, telling what they knew -- Nixon's version, in
any case.
And John Dean was urging Nixon not to do that. To make that case, Dean
was feeding Nixon's paranoia. In other words, Dean seemed to be saying:
Too many leads out. Let me control this process.
In response to a combination of events -- Weicker's call for more disclosure,
Bush's intervention with Nixon aimed at forcing Dean to testify, and
Dean's own insistence that there was more to the story -- Nixon met with
Dean the next day. That conversation, together with the smoking gun episode,
would help seal Nixon's fate.
On the morning of March 21, Nixon's White House counsel stepped
into the Oval Office and proceeded to deliver a speech that would make
Dean famous for the rest of his life. He would dramatically warn the president
of a "cancer on the presidency" soon to become inoperable. This
speech, which would shortly become Dean's principal evidence against
Nixon, may have been carefully calculated based on Dean's awareness
that the conversations were being taped. (Dean would later say he suspected
he was being taped, but as we shall see, he may have known for certain.)
In fact, for this dramatic moment, Dean had begun performing dress
rehearsals some eight days earlier. This is borne out by earlier taped
conversations -- ones whose very existence has been largely suppressed in
published accounts. In these earlier tapes, we hear Dean beginning to tell
Nixon about White House knowledge related to Watergate. (Most of these
tapes are excluded from what is generally considered the authoritative compendium
of transcripts, Abuse of Power: The New Nixon Tapes, by Stanley Kutler,
who told me in a 2008 interview that he considers himself a close friend
of John Dean.)
In one unpublicized taped conversation, from March 13, Dean told Nixon
that Haldeman's aide Gordon Strachan had foreknowledge of the break-in,
was already lying about it in interviews, and would continue to do so before
a grand jury. The Watergate prosecutors, for whom Dean was a crucial witness,
had the March 13 tape, but did not enter it into evidence.
DEAN: Well, Chapin didn't know anything about the Watergate, and -- NIXON: You don't think so? DEAN: No. Absolutely not. NIXON: Did Strachan? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: He knew? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: About the Watergate? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: Well, then, Bob knew. He probably told Bob, then. He may not have. He may not have. DEAN: He was, he was judicious in what he, in what he relayed, and, uh, but Strachan is as tough as nails. I -- NIXON: What'll he say? Just go in and say he didn't know? DEAN: He'll go in and stonewall it and say, "I don't know anything about what you are talking about." He has already done it twice, as you know, in interviews.
This is significant since Strachan, a junior staff member, was essentially
reporting to Dean -- a fact that Dean failed to point out to Nixon. Although
Strachan was Haldeman's aide, when it came to matters like these, he
would, at Dean's request, deal directly with Dean.
"As to the subject of political intelligence-gathering," Strachan told the Senate Watergate
Committee,
"John Dean was designated as the White House contact for the Committee
to Re-elect the President." Thus, if Strachan knew anything about Watergate,
even after the fact, it seems to have been because Dean included him in
the flow of "intelligence."
On March 17, in another tape generally excluded from accounts of Watergate,
Dean told Nixon about the Ellsberg break-in. He also provided a long list of
people who he felt might have "vulnerabilities" concerning Watergate,
and included himself in that list.
NIXON: Now, you were saying too, ah, what really, ah, where the, this thing leads, I mean in terms of the vulnerabilities and so forth. It's your view the vulnerables are basically Mitchell, Colson, Haldeman, indirectly, possibly directly, and of course, the second level is, as far as the White House is concerned, Chapin. DEAN: And I'd say Dean, to a degree. NIXON: You? Why? DEAN: Well, because I've been all over this thing like a blanket. NIXON: I know, I know, but you know all about it, but you didn't, you were in it after the deed was done. DEAN: That's correct, that I have no foreknowledge . . . NIXON: Here's the whole point, here's the whole point. My point is that your problem is you, you have no problem. All the others that have participated in the God-damned thing, and therefore are potentially subject to criminal liability. You're not. That's the difference.
In the heavily publicized "cancer" speech of March 21, Dean essentially
reiterated what he had told Nixon previously, if in more detail. But he added
an important element -- one which would cause Nixon serious problems
when the "cancer" tape was played for the public: a request for one million
dollars in "hush money" for the burglars. Informed by Dean of a "continual
blackmail operation by Hunt and Liddy and the Cubans," Nixon asked how
much money they needed. Dean responded, "These people are going to cost
a million dollars over the next two years." There is debate as to whether
Nixon actually agreed with Dean's suggestion to pay money or merely ruminated
over it. He never did pay the money.
Dean's behavior did not appear to be that of a lawyer seeking to protect
his client, let alone advice appropriate to the conduct of the presidency.
The alleged Russian computer Hacker named Guccifer 2.0 whom the Democrat National Committee
has publicly blamed for hacking its emails and giving them to WIkiLeaks before the Election in
order for Russia to help Donald Trump, was really a fiction created by an Obama White House
Staffer in order to prevent the exposure of why DNC Staffer Seth Rich was murdered and also try
to pin the exposure of DNC emails on Russia and Trump.
Democrat operatives had pushed the fictional Guccifer 2.0 story as the supposed Russian
hacker who broke into DNC servers and downloaded thousands of emails, then sent them to the
Russians, who then sent them to Wikileaks so Hilary Clinton could be defeated.
Never mind that it has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the download speed
was far too great to have been done by anyone but a DNC insider like Seth Rich. Because
Internet speeds are not nearly sufficient to support download speed that the meta data,
embedded in the emails, reported.
Never mind that the same meta data shows that the download came from the eastern time zone
of the US, not Romania or Russia.
A five minute video (below) proves Guccifer 2.0 was an invention of someone using a version
of Microsoft Word that was originally registered to a DNC / White House Staffer named Warren
Flood.
Here are two screen shots from warren floods Facebook page. Notice that warren worked for
"Obama for America," the DNC, and the White House . He lives in LaGrange, GA.
The video below does a great job explaining who is behind the original Trump opposition
research leaked via WikiLeaks AND the later (same) document allegedly obtained by Guccifer 2.0
by "hacking."
EVIDENCE OF DNC/WHITE HOUSE STAFFER BEING "RUSSIAN HACKER GUCCIFER
2.0″
If you have ever accidentally tried to open a Microsoft Word document in a simple text
editor like Notepad, you can see the meta data behind each word document, including WHO that
copy of Word belongs to.
The video below explains who the author of the original opposition research document was and
how we know:
. . . it also includes who the AUTHOR of the document of is. It gets that information from
the name that was entered when you installed your copy of Microsoft Office. Inside the
original trump opposition research, the document later released by WikiLeaks, the author of
the document is listed as Lauren Dillon , DNC Research Director.
This is Lauren Dillion from the DNC:
The metadata in the WikiLeaks release of Trump Opposition research shows that it was created
by Lauren Dillon, as show below:
_______________
HOWEVER, that same document later released by Guccifer 2.0 shows a CHANGE in who authored
Document; this later copy showing the Author as Warren Flood . . . . who worked in the White
House!
Thus, the entire claim by Guccifer 2.0 that he was a Russian Hacker who stole the DNC
emails, was a deliberate deception attributable to a staffer in the Obama White House: Warren
Flood.
Here's the kicker, the version of Trump's opposition research file that was originally
released by WikiLeaks, and later released to the Main-Stream-Media (MSM), was never attributed
to the DNC, it was attributed to the Russian Hacker "Guccifer 2.0 -- A man jailed in Romania
for hacking.
THE DNC/WHITE HOUSE "FATAL MISTAKE"
It just wouldn't do, to have the head of research for the DNC be the Leaker to WikiLeaks or
to have the later Guccifer 2.0 release to come from a White House staffer, it had to
be attributable to someone connected to the Russians. The Romanian guy was the FALL GUY.
The one fatal mistake the DNC and the Obama White House made was that no one remembered
about the Microsoft Word metadata which reveals the owner of that particular copy of the Word
software. So, according to the evidence, Guccifer 2.0 was actually DNC/White House Staffer,
Warren Flood.
Yes, you read that correctly: EVIDENCE. Not speculation, or rumor, or innuendo. Actual real
life, hard copy EVIDENCE.
Guccifer 2.0 was an invention of the DNC/White House to cover-up who the real leaker was;
and at the same time start the Russian Hacking rumors that persist today.
INTERESTINGLY, the Wikipedia entry for Guccifer 2.0, describes an interview he did with
MotherBoard via an online chat. Guccifer 2.0 insisted he was Romanian but, when pressed to use
the Romanian language in an interview with an Interview with Motherboard via an online chat, he
used such clunky grammar and terminology that experts believe he was using an online
translator.
Bottom line: The Obama White House invention of Guccifer 2.0, apparently through its Staffer
Warren Flood, accomplished three things:
1) It covered DNC research director Lauren Dillon. Whatever sort of opposition research she
authored was later claimed by Guccifer 2.0.
2) It covered for Seth Rich. This is the BIG ONE, because he was killed in an obvious
assassination staged to look like street robbery -- the only problem is, the robbers didn't
take anything. He still had all his cash and his Rolex watch when police arrived. And Guccifer
2.0 took also credit for the Podesta emails which were actually downloaded by Seth Rich and
given to WikiLeaks.
AND;
3) It created the conduit to "Russian Intelligence" to fortify the claim that it was the
Russians who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, and therefore Trump "was in collusion with the
Russians" to defeat Clinton.
The whole claim of "Russian Hacking" and "Trump colluding with Russians" has come unraveled
because it was ALL a complete fraud.
What remains is how this fraud is STILL affecting our nation to this very day, and how the
Congress of the United States, acting late last month upon this totally FALSE "Russian Hacking"
claim, has now enacted further sanction upon Russia – sanctions that will very likely
lead to war.
VIDEO EVIDENCE
Here is the video containing the EVIDENCE that the Wikileaks original Trump Opposition
document was created by a user whose Microsoft Word software was registered to DNC Research
Director Lauren Dillon, and the later exact same document, allegedly hacked by "GUccifer
2.0″ was done by DNC/White House Staffer William Flood
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
"... By illuminating CIA programs and systems of surveillance, control, and assassination utilized against the civilian population of South Vietnam, we are presented with parallels with operations and practices at work today in America's seemingly perpetual war against terror. ..."
"... Through the policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and "brute force" interventions that wreak havoc on designated enemy states, destroy progress and infrastructure under the claim of liberation, degrade the standards of living for people in the perceived hostile nations, "...America's ruling elite empowers itself while claiming it has ensured the safety and prestige of the American people. Sometimes it is even able to convince the public that its criminal actions are 'humanitarian' and designed to liberate the people in nations it destroys." ..."
"... Want to know why the DEA is losing the war on drugs, how torture has become policy? Want to know why the government no longer represents your interests? Look no further. ..."
Of the extraordinarily valuable and informative works for which Mr. Valentine is responsible, his latest, CIA As Organized
Crime, may prove to be the best choice as an introduction to the dark realm of America's hidden corruptions and their consequences
at home and around the world. This new volume begins with the unlikely but irrevocable framework by which Mr. Valentine's path
led to unprecedented access to key Agency personnel whose witting participation is summarized by the chapter title: "How William
Colby Gave Me the Keys to the CIA Kingdom."
By illuminating CIA programs and systems of surveillance, control, and assassination utilized against the civilian population
of South Vietnam, we are presented with parallels with operations and practices at work today in America's seemingly perpetual
war against terror.
Through the policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and "brute force" interventions that
wreak havoc on designated enemy states, destroy progress and infrastructure under the claim of liberation, degrade the standards
of living for people in the perceived hostile nations, "...America's ruling elite empowers itself while claiming it has ensured
the safety and prestige of the American people. Sometimes it is even able to convince the public that its criminal actions are
'humanitarian' and designed to liberate the people in nations it destroys."
Mr. Valentine has presented us with a major body of work which includes: The Strength of the Wolf; The Strength of the Pack;
The Pheonix Program, to which we may now add The CIA as Organized Crime, and for which we are profoundly indebted.
If you want the inside scoop on the CIA and it's criminal past; this is the book. Additionally, why the Phoenix Program is
pertinent for our own times. This book connects the dots.
If you have been wondering why Homeland Security has fusion centers; why the USA Anti-Patriot Act, NDAA and Rex 84 have been
passed by Congress; you will get your answer here.
A book every intelligent American needs to read and place in a prominent place in their library. Oh, and don't forget after
you read it; spread the word !!! (this book is based upon actual face to face interviews and documents)
Run, don't walk, and get yourself a copy of this book. The author has been warning us for decades about the clear and present
danger that is the CIA I was unaware of Valentine's work for most of those years, perhaps because our media outlets (even the
"anti-establishment" ones like Democracy Now and The Intercept) have been compromised. Valentine's work has been suppressed since
his ground-breaking book on the Phoenix Program.
Not that I didn't know anything about the sordid history. I knew about MK-Ultra, some of the agency's drug running and empire-building
exploits. This work goes much deeper and paints a much bigger picture. The extent of the agency's influence is much greater than
I had imagined.
This is not another history book about dirty tricks. It is not just about our insane foreign policy and empire building. The
cancer of corruption, of outright crime, has metastasized into every agency of the government right here in the US itself. Those
dirty tricks and crimes have become domestic policy- in fusion centers and Homeland Security, in the militarization of local police
and in Congress, from Wall Street to Main Street. Border Patrol, the DEA, Justice and State have all been compromised.
Want to know why the DEA is losing the war on drugs, how torture has become policy? Want to know why the government no
longer represents your interests? Look no further.
The problem is now. We are the new targets.
Read it and weep, but for God's sake, please read it.
A highly informative and comprehensive book, and a scathing, fearless indictment of government corruption.
I cannot overstate it's importance.
I just picked up this book and have not read it yet--but I am writing this to CORRECT THE RECORD regarding very basic information.
There are 446 PAGES (not 286, as listed above). 160 Pages is a big difference--obviously, QUALITY is more important than quantity--but
I do feel the listing needs be corrected.
The "Inside Look" feature is also cutting off the last 9 chapters of the book, which are as follows:
Chapter 16: Major General Bruce Lawlor: From CIA Officer in Vietnam to Homeland Security Honcho
Chapter 17: Homeland Security: The Phoenix Comes Home to Roost
PART IV: MANUFACTURING COMPLICITY: SHAPING THE AMERICAN WORLDVIEW
Chapter 18: Fragging Bob Kerrey: The CIA and the Need for a War Crimes Tribunal
Chapter 19: Top Secret America Shadow Reward System
Chapter 20: How Government Tries to Mess with Your Mind
Chapter 21: Disguising Obama's Dirty War
Chapter 22: Parallels of Conquest, Past and Present
Chapter 23: Propaganda as Terrorism
Chapter 24: The War on Terror as the Greatest Covert Op Ever
This is a devastating and must-read study of the social and political calamity created by the CIA over the last sixty years.
The portrait shows the criminal character of the agency and finally of the government it is said to serve. The portrait is a double
shock because it shows not just a sordid corruption but a malevolent 'dark side' mafia-style corruption of american civilization
and government. That the CIA controls the drug trade is not the least of the stunning revelations of this history.
This was written almost a year ago. Not author demonstrated tremendous insight which was confirmed by subsequent events.
Notable quotes:
"... The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. ..."
"... The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'! ..."
"... Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound " ..."
The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded
by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as
in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over 'Al' Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious
electoral outcomes in these cases, the 'defeated' candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful
protests to register their opposition.
These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect
Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected
president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.
We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and
the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.
Regime Change in America
In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent
foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years
of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups
were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'.
The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political,
administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction
between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.
Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The
US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.
The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected
and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional
ideological boundaries.
Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize
the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal
gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.
Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the legitimacy of the November 2016
election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump's victory, a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect
even before he takes office – by claiming Trump was an 'enemy agent'.
The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail members of the Electoral
College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.
Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected
president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful
elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations
with Russia were acts of treason.
The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald
Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony
documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the
major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the
'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered
to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'!
Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British
official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect.
Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership
was involved in a domestic coup d'état.
CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect.
For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened
the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's
policies) on the United States could be profound "
Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US
president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.
From a Scratch to Gangrene
The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and rightist politicos, the corporate
mass media and the 'progressive' websites and pundits providing ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated 'regime change'.
Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many – they are now being degraded and discarded in a march toward
an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and 'in`telligence' hierarchy.
Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the
atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous
organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their
drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York.
http://petras.lahaine.org/
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well
it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.
I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same
coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk
averse.
Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very
predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if
Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he
would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton
had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk
averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia
hacking the election are fake news.
As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including
state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian
state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.
"... It's very interesting. But there is one thing that is certain according to McAffee (the McAffee) "If it looked like it was the Russians, then I can guarantee it WASN'T the Russians." ..."
"... Good comment and reading the last line, it has just reminded me of 'Vault 7' and what Wiki Leaks had to say. ..."
"... Vault 7 CIA Hacking Tools Revealed.docx... https://www.scribd.com/docu... ..."
Getting closer all the time, but Mueller's job will continue till the mid-term elections just to see if they can get away
with their scheming. The tale within a tale: FBI investigates and discovers they themselves are also part of this tale. The
story will have a tail: will it be a tragic, Shakespearean end or repentance by Hillary and Mueller (Duh...).
It's about the date / time stamps on the files, and the HACKER (Guciffer 2.0) was acutely
an Obama aid called: WARREN FLOOD. Warren Flood pretended to hack the DNC and made himself
out to be Russian with an alias of Guciffer 2.0. That was the smoke screen the Democrats put
out on top of the Crowdstrike false evidence job. It's excellent reading.
Thank you for the link and must admit it has made me laugh. A line I will use in the
future. '50 Shades of Pissed Off' - no doubt I will use it as my Mantra for 2018.
Yes, that Guccifer 2.0 stuff and the clear evidence that it was not a hack was published
before but you are now updating us by identifying the guy who did it, which should also
change the process. Thanks for that!
Update: Just see what Libby and Trauma2000 mean: yes, that makes sense!
In actual fact, it was Seth Ritch who 'leaked' the material (if you believe that Huma Abdeen was the original leaker and used Seth as a 'go between' then that is up to you). When
the DNC found out Seth was the leaker, the murdered him and had to 'think up a story' hence
Guccifer 2.0. There are several DNC employees involved but Warren Flood is the 'fall guy'
along with a girl (her name is out there) whom had her name on the software licenses that
were used to doctor the emails.
It's very interesting. But there is one thing that is certain according to McAffee (the
McAffee) "If it looked like it was the Russians, then I can guarantee it WASN'T the
Russians."
For me it is because of the truth: there is not much point being on this or that "side",
but when the truth is so twisted it becomes perversion and that should be uncovered.
Flood had already stopped working as Biden's IT director back in 2011, the only place he'd
likely have had his name on a license under the company name GSA based on his work history -
was there.
So, Guccifer 2.0's first docs were most likely constructed using a computer that had
resided in the West Wing office on June 15, 2016 at the exact same time as Pyatt, Nuland and
others (also connected to the Ukraine coup in 2014) were meeting there.
source:
http://g-2.space
(the person behind it is the person who originally wrote this "Fancy Fraud, Bogus Bears..."
article too)
RE: The Eastern timezone. - If referring to the NGP-VAN analysis, the timestamps
themselves don't show timezones but the timezone can be evaluated due to how timestamps on
files (that appear to be part of the same batch transfer on July 5, 2016) are displayed in
the 7zip archive root versus those in various RAR files contained within (and the different
methods of timestamp storage used by the different archive formats) and how this changes
depending on what your computer's timezone is set to (the time changes in the 7zip but not in
the RARs and the only timezone in which these have a close correlation is Eastern).
There was an article, that I read, just before Christmas Day, that supports what you say.
That Mueller has got to keep the narrative running, until they have sorted out the Mid-Term
Elections, that the Dems believe will work to their advantage. Is it something to do with the
Dems hoping to control Congress and managing to close any investigations that Trump is
working on?
Surprised with Fox. Considering old Murdoch has a problem with Russia, no doubt owing to
his interests in Genie Energy. However, not complaining, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and now
the ex-NSA on Fox News. Nice.
This is just the beginning: just read New Trump Executive Order Targets Clinton-Linked
Individuals, Lobbyists And Perhaps Uranium One on
Zerohedge.com
1. It will have huge consequences for all those who made shady deals with dictators and
criminals (adding to the coffers of the Clinton Foundation etc.etc.). Perhaps this is what
Trump was waiting for to start in the new year:his fireworks response to all the mud slung
around?
2. Seth Rich and distraction by Guccifer 2.0: Trauma200 comments below is BIG and makes the
connection to SETH RICH's murder, which also shows how Assange made it necessary for the
complete the search and expose with evidence what was going on.
What I am curious about, is will he use it for that or will he go for any foreigner that
Washington DC has a problem with. Such as anybody who is a friend of President Putin, just to
cause problems, before the Russian Presidential Campaign.
Or am I being cynical. I seriously hope he uses it for the Russia Gate crowd and no doubt,
he has good reason and he is not known to like being insulted, with no payback. However, I
can also see him using it as another form of punishment on non-nationals.
One additional point: Thomas Rid and most of the mainstream media keeps saying that German
intelligence fingered Russia for the German Parliament attacks. While this is partly true,
German intelligence in fact never said directly that APT 29 or "Fancy Bear" WAS DEFINITELY
Russian state sponsored. They said they ASSUMED Russia was conducting hacks on Germany.
See here:
Digital Attack on German Parliament: Investigative Report on the Hack of the Left Party
Infrastructure in Bundestag
https://netzpolitik.org/201...
Jeffrey Carr made this point early on in his Medium article:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of
identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control
address -- 176.31.112[.]10 -- that was hard coded in a piece of
malware found both in the German parliament as well as on
the DNC's servers. Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic
security agency BfV as the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure
behind the fake MIS Department domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at
least one other element, a shared SSL certificate.
This paragraph sounds quite damning if you take it at face value, but if you invest a
little time into checking the source material, its carefully constructed narrative falls
apart.
Problem #1:
The IP address 176.31.112[.]10 used in the Bundestag breach as a Command and Control server
has never been connected to the Russian intelligence services. In fact, Claudio Guarnieri, a
highly regarded security researcher, whose technical analysis was referenced by Rid, stated
that "no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country."
Problem #2: The Command & Control server (176.31.112.10) was using an outdated version
of OpenSSL vulnerable to Heartbleed attacks. Heartbleed allows attackers to exfiltrate data
including private keys, usernames, passwords and other sensitive information.
The existence of a known security vulnerability that's trivial to exploit opens the door
to the possibility that the systems in question were used by one rogue group, and then
infiltrated by a second rogue group,
making the attribution process even more complicated. At the very least, the C2 server should
be considered a compromised indicator.
Problem #3: The BfV published a newsletter in January 2016 which assumes that the GRU and
FSB are responsible because of technical indicators, not because of any classified finding;
to wit: "Many
of these attack campaigns have each other on technical similarities, such as malicious
software families, and infrastructure -- these are important indicators of the
same authorship. It is assumed that both the
Russian domestic intelligence service FSB and the military foreign intelligence service GRU
run cyber operations."
Professor Rid's argument depended heavily on conveying hard attribution by the BfV even
though the President of the BfV didn't disguise the fact that their attribution was based on
an assumption and not hard evidence.
Thanks for the article and reminding us of Crowd Strike. Must admit, I read an interesting
article, over on Oped News, by George Eliason, with regards Crowd Strike. Plus a few other
reminders.
Does anybody remember the Awan Brothers from Pakistan and what they were arrested for,
with regards the DNC and computers?
Then you have Google and Soros and their links into Crowd Strike. Hasn't the CEO of Google
just stepped down, the same day that Trump signed a Presidential Order, that might prove a
problem for some, in the future?
QANON EXPOSES DEM CONSPIRACY TO FRAME TRUMP, CLAIMS GOOGLE'S SCHMIDT PLAYED PIVOTAL
ROLE
QAnon also claims Debbie Wasserman Schultz contracted MS-13 gang to kill Seth Rich...
https://www.infowars.com/qa...
Remember, Crowd Strike, Dmitry Alperovic and his links back to The Atlantic Council? Then
you have the Ukrainian Oligarch Pinchuk, who happily invested $25 million in the Clinton
Foundation. Remember his Yalta Summits and the one back in September 2013? Now who attended
and what were the various topics that they discussed?
Then you have Obama giving Crowd Strike
a White House Commission for Cyber Security. Plus, the DNC refusing the FBI access to their
servers, but, having no problem giving Crowd Strike full access. Now why was that? Funny how
often Ukraine comes up, when looking into Clinton, Fusion, Crowdstrike, Old Ukrainian Malware
and The Trump Dossier? Coincidence or what?
"... I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become. ..."
"... Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing. ..."
"... I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here. ..."
I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they
continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become.
Today Alexander Mercouris, to me one of the best reporters on this matter additional to b, indicates the Mueller investigation
will delay and stall with this and that until the 2018 congressional elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be
won by Democrats, which will take the heat off Mueller's show by current Repubs led by Nunes--now shifting to investigate Clinton.
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump
re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner
with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump
tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should
focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing.
I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist,
a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as
moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington.
I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here.
"... It's very interesting. But there is one thing that is certain according to McAffee (the McAffee) "If it looked like it was the Russians, then I can guarantee it WASN'T the Russians." ..."
"... Good comment and reading the last line, it has just reminded me of 'Vault 7' and what Wiki Leaks had to say. ..."
"... Vault 7 CIA Hacking Tools Revealed.docx... https://www.scribd.com/docu... ..."
Getting closer all the time, but Mueller's job will continue till the mid-term elections just to see if they can get away
with their scheming. The tale within a tale: FBI investigates and discovers they themselves are also part of this tale. The
story will have a tail: will it be a tragic, Shakespearean end or repentance by Hillary and Mueller (Duh...).
It's about the date / time stamps on the files, and the HACKER (Guciffer 2.0) was acutely
an Obama aid called: WARREN FLOOD. Warren Flood pretended to hack the DNC and made himself
out to be Russian with an alias of Guciffer 2.0. That was the smoke screen the Democrats put
out on top of the Crowdstrike false evidence job. It's excellent reading.
Thank you for the link and must admit it has made me laugh. A line I will use in the
future. '50 Shades of Pissed Off' - no doubt I will use it as my Mantra for 2018.
Yes, that Guccifer 2.0 stuff and the clear evidence that it was not a hack was published
before but you are now updating us by identifying the guy who did it, which should also
change the process. Thanks for that!
Update: Just see what Libby and Trauma2000 mean: yes, that makes sense!
In actual fact, it was Seth Ritch who 'leaked' the material (if you believe that Huma Abdeen was the original leaker and used Seth as a 'go between' then that is up to you). When
the DNC found out Seth was the leaker, the murdered him and had to 'think up a story' hence
Guccifer 2.0. There are several DNC employees involved but Warren Flood is the 'fall guy'
along with a girl (her name is out there) whom had her name on the software licenses that
were used to doctor the emails.
It's very interesting. But there is one thing that is certain according to McAffee (the
McAffee) "If it looked like it was the Russians, then I can guarantee it WASN'T the
Russians."
For me it is because of the truth: there is not much point being on this or that "side",
but when the truth is so twisted it becomes perversion and that should be uncovered.
Flood had already stopped working as Biden's IT director back in 2011, the only place he'd
likely have had his name on a license under the company name GSA based on his work history -
was there.
So, Guccifer 2.0's first docs were most likely constructed using a computer that had
resided in the West Wing office on June 15, 2016 at the exact same time as Pyatt, Nuland and
others (also connected to the Ukraine coup in 2014) were meeting there.
source:
http://g-2.space
(the person behind it is the person who originally wrote this "Fancy Fraud, Bogus Bears..."
article too)
RE: The Eastern timezone. - If referring to the NGP-VAN analysis, the timestamps
themselves don't show timezones but the timezone can be evaluated due to how timestamps on
files (that appear to be part of the same batch transfer on July 5, 2016) are displayed in
the 7zip archive root versus those in various RAR files contained within (and the different
methods of timestamp storage used by the different archive formats) and how this changes
depending on what your computer's timezone is set to (the time changes in the 7zip but not in
the RARs and the only timezone in which these have a close correlation is Eastern).
There was an article, that I read, just before Christmas Day, that supports what you say.
That Mueller has got to keep the narrative running, until they have sorted out the Mid-Term
Elections, that the Dems believe will work to their advantage. Is it something to do with the
Dems hoping to control Congress and managing to close any investigations that Trump is
working on?
Surprised with Fox. Considering old Murdoch has a problem with Russia, no doubt owing to
his interests in Genie Energy. However, not complaining, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and now
the ex-NSA on Fox News. Nice.
This is just the beginning: just read New Trump Executive Order Targets Clinton-Linked
Individuals, Lobbyists And Perhaps Uranium One on
Zerohedge.com
1. It will have huge consequences for all those who made shady deals with dictators and
criminals (adding to the coffers of the Clinton Foundation etc.etc.). Perhaps this is what
Trump was waiting for to start in the new year:his fireworks response to all the mud slung
around?
2. Seth Rich and distraction by Guccifer 2.0: Trauma200 comments below is BIG and makes the
connection to SETH RICH's murder, which also shows how Assange made it necessary for the
complete the search and expose with evidence what was going on.
What I am curious about, is will he use it for that or will he go for any foreigner that
Washington DC has a problem with. Such as anybody who is a friend of President Putin, just to
cause problems, before the Russian Presidential Campaign.
Or am I being cynical. I seriously hope he uses it for the Russia Gate crowd and no doubt,
he has good reason and he is not known to like being insulted, with no payback. However, I
can also see him using it as another form of punishment on non-nationals.
One additional point: Thomas Rid and most of the mainstream media keeps saying that German
intelligence fingered Russia for the German Parliament attacks. While this is partly true,
German intelligence in fact never said directly that APT 29 or "Fancy Bear" WAS DEFINITELY
Russian state sponsored. They said they ASSUMED Russia was conducting hacks on Germany.
See here:
Digital Attack on German Parliament: Investigative Report on the Hack of the Left Party
Infrastructure in Bundestag
https://netzpolitik.org/201...
Jeffrey Carr made this point early on in his Medium article:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of
identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control
address -- 176.31.112[.]10 -- that was hard coded in a piece of
malware found both in the German parliament as well as on
the DNC's servers. Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic
security agency BfV as the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure
behind the fake MIS Department domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at
least one other element, a shared SSL certificate.
This paragraph sounds quite damning if you take it at face value, but if you invest a
little time into checking the source material, its carefully constructed narrative falls
apart.
Problem #1:
The IP address 176.31.112[.]10 used in the Bundestag breach as a Command and Control server
has never been connected to the Russian intelligence services. In fact, Claudio Guarnieri, a
highly regarded security researcher, whose technical analysis was referenced by Rid, stated
that "no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country."
Problem #2: The Command & Control server (176.31.112.10) was using an outdated version
of OpenSSL vulnerable to Heartbleed attacks. Heartbleed allows attackers to exfiltrate data
including private keys, usernames, passwords and other sensitive information.
The existence of a known security vulnerability that's trivial to exploit opens the door
to the possibility that the systems in question were used by one rogue group, and then
infiltrated by a second rogue group,
making the attribution process even more complicated. At the very least, the C2 server should
be considered a compromised indicator.
Problem #3: The BfV published a newsletter in January 2016 which assumes that the GRU and
FSB are responsible because of technical indicators, not because of any classified finding;
to wit: "Many
of these attack campaigns have each other on technical similarities, such as malicious
software families, and infrastructure -- these are important indicators of the
same authorship. It is assumed that both the
Russian domestic intelligence service FSB and the military foreign intelligence service GRU
run cyber operations."
Professor Rid's argument depended heavily on conveying hard attribution by the BfV even
though the President of the BfV didn't disguise the fact that their attribution was based on
an assumption and not hard evidence.
Thanks for the article and reminding us of Crowd Strike. Must admit, I read an interesting
article, over on Oped News, by George Eliason, with regards Crowd Strike. Plus a few other
reminders.
Does anybody remember the Awan Brothers from Pakistan and what they were arrested for,
with regards the DNC and computers?
Then you have Google and Soros and their links into Crowd Strike. Hasn't the CEO of Google
just stepped down, the same day that Trump signed a Presidential Order, that might prove a
problem for some, in the future?
QANON EXPOSES DEM CONSPIRACY TO FRAME TRUMP, CLAIMS GOOGLE'S SCHMIDT PLAYED PIVOTAL
ROLE
QAnon also claims Debbie Wasserman Schultz contracted MS-13 gang to kill Seth Rich...
https://www.infowars.com/qa...
Remember, Crowd Strike, Dmitry Alperovic and his links back to The Atlantic Council? Then
you have the Ukrainian Oligarch Pinchuk, who happily invested $25 million in the Clinton
Foundation. Remember his Yalta Summits and the one back in September 2013? Now who attended
and what were the various topics that they discussed?
Then you have Obama giving Crowd Strike
a White House Commission for Cyber Security. Plus, the DNC refusing the FBI access to their
servers, but, having no problem giving Crowd Strike full access. Now why was that? Funny how
often Ukraine comes up, when looking into Clinton, Fusion, Crowdstrike, Old Ukrainian Malware
and The Trump Dossier? Coincidence or what?
Several months ago it emerged that the Republican sponsor behind the Fusion GPS Trump
project was hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, a fact which surprised many who expected that
John McCain would be the GOP mastermind looking for dirt in Trump's past. However, a new and
credible McCain trail has emerged in the annals of the "Trump Dossier" after the
Washington Examiner reported that the House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena to an
associate of John McCain over his connection with the salacious dossier containing unverified
allegations about Trump and his ties to Russia, which many speculate served as the illegitimate
basis for FISA warrants against the Trump campaign - permitting the NSA to listen in on Trump's
phone calls - and which the
president yesterday slammed as "bogus" and a "crooked Hillary pile of garbage."
In the latest twist, committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) wants to talk to David Kramer, a
former State Department official and current senior fellow at the McCain Institute for
International Leadership at Arizona State University, about his visit to London in November
2016. During his trip, at McCain's request Kramer met with the dossier's author, former British
spy Christopher Steele, to view "the pre-election memoranda on a confidential basis," according
to court filings and to receive a briefing and a copy of the Trump dossier. Kramer then
returned to the U.S. to give the document to McCain. McCain then took a copy of the dossier to
the FBI's then-director, James Comey. But the FBI already had the document; Steele himself gave
the dossier to the bureau in installments, reportedly beginning in early July 2016. While
McCain, recovering in Arizona from treatments for cancer, has long refused to detail his
actions regarding the dossier, his associate Kramer was interviewed by the House Intelligence
Committee on Dec. 19. The new subpoena stems from statements Kramer made in that interview. In
the session, the Washington Examiner reports, Kramer told House investigators that he knew the
identities of the Russian sources for the allegations in Steele's dossier. But when
investigators pressed Kramer to reveal those names, he declined to do so.
Now, he is under subpoena which was issued Wednesday afternoon, and directs Kramer to appear
again before House investigators on Jan. 11.
As the ongoing government probe slowly turns away from Trump's "collusion" with the Russians
and toward the FBI "insurance policy" to allegedly prevent Trump from becoming president by
fabricating a narrative of Russian cooperation with the Trump, knowing Steele's sources will be
a critical part of the congressional dossier investigation:
"If one argues the document is unverified and never will be, it is critical to learn the
identity of the sources to support that conclusion. If one argues the document is the whole
truth, or largely true, knowing sources is equally critical."
There is another reason to know Steele's sources, and that is to learn not just the origin
of the dossier but its place in the larger Trump-Russia affair. As the WashEx adds, there is a
belief among some congressional investigators that the Russians who provided information to
Steele were using Steele to disrupt the American election as much as the Russians who
distributed hacked Democratic Party emails. In some investigators' views, they are the two
sides of the Trump-Russia project, both aimed at sowing chaos and discord in the American
political system.
Still, investigators who favor this theory ask a sensible question: " It is likely that all
the Russians involved in the attempt to influence the 2016 election were lying, scheing,
Kremlin-linked, Putin-backed enemies of America – except the Russians who talked to
Christopher Steele? "
On the other hand, the theory is still just a theory, for now... and as the Examiner's Byron
York correctly points out, to validate -or refute - it House investigators will seek Steele's
sources – and is why they will try to compel Kramer to talk.
They just gave a bunch of suckers and con artists a lot of fucking bullshit. They wanted
something they could use in a scheme to rig the election for Hillary. They'd believe
anything.
"...there is a belief among some congressional investigators that the Russians who
provided information to Steele were using Steele to disrupt the American election as much as
the Russians who distributed hacked Democratic Party emails."Since the emails could not have
been hacked from the server by the Russians (according to Binny the download speeds are
impossible across the internet), it naturally follows that anyone who still believes this
myth is willfully ignorant.
Not that many tons!If you don't want to read the article and forensic evidence, 23 meg
data transfer, transocean does not exist of 2 gig in 87 seconds. It does not exist locally,
maybe now it does in certain point to point nodes only, but not through an IP."The metadata
established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5,
2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC's server. The operation took 87
seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.These statistics are
matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider,
such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this
speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania,
which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed
of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.What is the maximum achievable speed?
Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server
speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came
up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second -- half what the DNC operation would need were
it a hack. Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a
survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use
it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half
2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes
per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were
recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second."A
speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a
transoceanic data transfer," Folden said. "Based on the data we now have, what we've been
calling a hack is impossible." Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted
more recently. It tightens the case considerably. "Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per
second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when
communicating over the Internet at any significant distance," he wrote. "Further, local copy
speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a
USB–2 flash device (thumb drive)."
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-abo
Sorry, but any credence whatsoever to "Russia", even saying the name, is diversionary
twaddle of the first rank.It is the content of Hillary's emails and the criminal conduct of
the conspirators, not Russia, that matters. I don't give a shit about Russia, period. Irony
in the story? So what. We need Clinton at the gas chamber for sedition. When Seth Rich
downloaded the DNC files on a thumb drive, the conspirators had to get in front of the story.
So before Wikileaks released the emails, the DNC and deep state already had the story out
that Russians had hacked them.Since the Wikileaks release it has been nonstop Russia Russia
Russia.
it is called loosing control. or loosing an election. now they are loosing it, mentaly,
and starting to do really dumb shit. just like criminals when the law closes in. getting
desparate. anything can happen, when psychopaths are cornered...
OOOhhh, a subpoena. Yeah, that'll do it. That'll scare the shit out of him. Got a
suggestion: Have a couple of Federal Marshalls drag his ass out of bed at 0-Dark-30, handcuff
him and drag his ass kicking & screaming into the House Chamber, with black eyes and
multiple cuts & contusions. Maybe then, and ONLY THEN, will we get some real answers as
to what is going on. Quit fucking around with these tratorious assholes for once.
A reasonably intelligent person would be insulted by the actions of these people who
clearly think they can throw out meaningless garbage to keep people from paying attention to
what is really important.Hookers widdled on the donald! Did not...Did too! Did not... Did
too!Is your intelligence insulted yet? If not, maybe there's a reason for that.Apparently the
fat Don gave up two of your National Parks recently to his friends, the Corporate resource
extractors.. He's been busy shining Israeli boots too in case you didn't notice. He owes the
old Vegas sin vendor you see., And when you owe Vegas, and the resource extractors like Koch
bros, you pay the debt. Or else.
Quote from articleThere is another reason to know Steele's sources, and that is to learn
not just the origin of the dossier but its place in the larger Trump-Russia affair. As the
WashEx adds, there is a belief among some congressional investigators that the Russians who
provided information to Steele were using Steele to disrupt the American election as much as
the Russians who distributed hacked Democratic Party emails. In some investigators' views,
they are the two sides of the Trump-Russia project, both aimed at sowing chaos and discord in
the American political system.IMOP As a Australian i await a 'republican or democrap' to come
to me and ask (for monetary reward) whats my thoughts on Hellory CUNTon. I wont hold back and
to hell with interfering with the Presidential election. Dying to good for her!
I bet the Russians who gave that guppy Steele the information for the dossier must have
laughed their asses off for months at a time! I bet they haven't stopped laughing.......
"As the WashEx adds, there is a belief among some congressional investigators that the
Russians who provided information to Steele were using Steele to disrupt the American
election as much as the Russians who distributed hacked Democratic Party emails. In some
investigators' views, they are the two sides of the Trump-Russia project, both aimed at
sowing chaos and discord in the American political system." Well, the neocons should be
happy. Either way, Hillary guilty or Trump guilty, the Russkis were complicit and sowing
chaos and discord. Win-win for the war party narrative. BTW, the democrat party emails were
leaked, not hacked - the biggest of all the big lies.
What about Binney? No mention of that little factoid? The emails were downloaded locally.
The data proves that the data was down loaded at a speed that could only be done directly to,
say a thumbdrive. Thump ordered the CIA head Pompaio to meet Binney and discuss the matter.
It has been shown that US policy dictates that the local download cannot have happened lest
the entire integegence community look stupid. Chack it out https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william
He's a lifelong lefty swamp dweller with a background in Russian and human rights affairs.
He left the State Dept. in 2009 for his current job at the McCain Inst. at Arizona State.
But just why was Kramer, of all people, sent to London to meet with Steele, and on whose
initiative? On McCain's?
Is he connected to Fusion GPS or the Ohrs? And why would he make the bombshell claim to
know the identities of the Russian sources of the dossier when testifying before the House
Intelligence Committee and then refuse to actually name names?
Just a hunch, but I wonder if Mr. Kramer had a hand in fabricating the dossier?
Which begs the question: Was McCain involved in fabricating the dossier?
"... I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become. ..."
"... Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing. ..."
"... I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here. ..."
I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they
continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become.
Today Alexander Mercouris, to me one of the best reporters on this matter additional to b, indicates the Mueller investigation
will delay and stall with this and that until the 2018 congressional elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be
won by Democrats, which will take the heat off Mueller's show by current Repubs led by Nunes--now shifting to investigate Clinton.
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump
re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner
with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump
tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should
focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing.
I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist,
a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as
moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington.
I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here.
"... It should be Clinton-Gate not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been hoodwinked into believing government falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of Iraq. ..."
It's very difficult to get the head wrapped around the Mueller investigation as a contrivance to avoid going after Clinton, which
shows a corrupted intelligence service working for political ends and saving the Democratic Party, which needs replacing. The
evidence against Clinton is much more substantial than the continuing Mueller foray into inconsequence.
If you need more on Clinton
beyond the massive email problems she had to avoid revealing how much pay money she was getting, search on the DNC convention
entirely corrupted over to her and then the Uranium One deal. Why is all this not being investigated?
It should be Clinton-Gate
not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been hoodwinked into believing government
falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of Iraq.
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I
regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts
to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing
Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more
aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the
the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.
Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained
foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using
Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public
opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are
incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with
billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used
for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian
plan.
The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot.
Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his
Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly
extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is
so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to
end sanctions against Russia.
Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will
unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which
allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad
bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the
world's favor in the long run.
there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the
rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the
election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now
dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."
The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the
campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those
who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the
usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't
need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.
To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence.
Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As
with:
"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir
Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in
the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and
completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the
evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for
the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical
embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in
the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not
seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in
casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility –
even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been
moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."
I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and
the ME. Credit to b.
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it
makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD
make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential
level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than
a witch hunt.
But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts
to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its
free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world,
including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own
medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus
pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering
controls in the future.
USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have
not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.
"... After scorning the Russia collusion theories as fiction, Bannon acknowledged the grisly reality that the Russia investigation poses for his former boss. And he blamed it all on Kushner, for having created the appearance that Putin had helped Trump. Dropping Kushner head first into the grinder, Bannon turned the crank. ..."
"... "[Kushner was] taking meetings with Russians to get additional stuff. This tells you everything about Jared," Bannon told the magazine's Gabriel Sherman. "They were looking for the picture of Hillary Clinton taking the bag of cash from Putin. That's his maturity level." ..."
"... Informing Vanity Fair that Kushner's hunt for political smut led him to over-fraternize with the Russians might not be the best way for Bannon to throw special counsel Robert S. Mueller III off the collusion scent. ..."
"... Sherman's piece reveals the cognitive split that evolved between Bannon and others, specifically Trump, on how to handle the mess that had been created. "Goldman Sachs teaches one thing: don't invent shit. Take something that works and make it better," Bannon told Sherman. He said he consulted with Bill Clinton's former lawyer Lanny Davis about how the Clintons responded to Ken Starr's probe. "We were so disciplined. You guys don't have that," Bannon recalls Davis advising him. "That always haunted me when he said that," Bannon told Sherman. Bannon said the investigation was an attempt by the establishment to undo the election, but he took it seriously and warned Trump he was in danger of being impeached. ..."
"... There's even more hot Bannon on Kushner action. Bannon tells of an Oval Office meeting he attended with Trump, Kushner and Kushner's wife Ivanka Trump in which he called Ivanka "the queen of leaks." "You're a fucking liar!" Ivanka allegedly responded. Hard to know how to score this round, but shattering the public image of Ivanka as poised princess must have been satisfying for a guy who called Javanka "the Democrats." ..."
"... Although "people close to Kushner, who decline to be named" told the Times they don't think the Mueller investigation exposes him to legal jeopardy, the young prince isn't taking chances. The Washington Post reports that his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has been shopping for a "crisis public relations firm" over the past two weeks. (Senator Robert Menendez, the recent beneficiary of a deadlocked corruption trial, is another Lowell client.) ..."
"... Why hire super flacks now? Does Kushner sense disaster? Another Bannon offensive? The Flynn plea bargain exposed him -- according to the press -- as the "very senior member" of the Trump transition team described in court documents who told former national security adviser Michael Flynn to lobby the Russian ambassador about a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements. Maybe he's just buying reputation insurance. Or maybe he's taken to heart Chris Christie's scathing comments. Christie was squeezed out of the Trump transition early on, some say by Kushner who is said to hold a grudge against Christie who, when he was federal prosecutor, put Kushner's father in jail . This week Christie said that Kushner "deserves the scrutiny" he's been getting. It was almost as if Christie and Bannon were operating a twin-handled grinder, cranking out an extra helping of Kushner's tainted reputation. ..."
"... President Putin and President Trump occupied the same page about the scandal this week in what was either a matter of collusion or of great minds thinking alike. Speaking at a four-hour media event in Moscow, Putin blamed the scandal on the U.S. "deep state" and said, "This is all made up by people who oppose Trump to make his work look illegitimate." According to CNN , Trump took the opportunity this week to call the Russia investigation "bullshit" in private. In public, he told reporters, "There's absolutely no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it." ..."
Former Trump chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon milled his former Oval Office colleague Jared Kushner into a bloody chunk of battle
sausage this week and smeared him across the shiny pages of
Vanity Fair . You've got to read Bannon's quote three or four times to fully savor the tang of its malice and cruelty. After scorning the
Russia collusion theories as fiction, Bannon acknowledged the grisly reality that the Russia investigation poses for his former boss.
And he blamed it all on Kushner, for having created the appearance that Putin had helped Trump. Dropping Kushner head first into
the grinder, Bannon turned the crank.
"[Kushner was] taking meetings with Russians to get additional stuff. This tells you everything about Jared," Bannon told the
magazine's Gabriel Sherman. "They were looking for the picture of Hillary Clinton taking the bag of cash from Putin. That's his maturity
level."
Informing Vanity Fair that Kushner's hunt for political smut led him to over-fraternize with the Russians might not be
the best way for Bannon to throw special counsel Robert S. Mueller III off the collusion scent. So what was the big man in the Barbour
coat up to?
That Bannon and Kushner skirmished during their time together in the White House has been long established. Kushner advocated
the sacking FBI Director James B. Comey, for example, and Bannon opposed it. He later
told 60 Minutes that the firing
was maybe the worst mistake in "modern political history" because it precipitated the hiring of the special counsel and had thereby
expanded the investigation.
Sherman's piece reveals the cognitive split that evolved between Bannon and others, specifically Trump, on how to handle the
mess that had been created. "Goldman Sachs teaches one thing: don't invent shit. Take something that works and make it better," Bannon
told Sherman. He said he consulted with Bill Clinton's former lawyer Lanny Davis about how the Clintons responded to Ken Starr's
probe. "We were so disciplined. You guys don't have that," Bannon recalls Davis advising him. "That always haunted me when he said
that," Bannon told Sherman. Bannon said the investigation was an attempt by the establishment to undo the election, but he took it
seriously and warned Trump he was in danger of being impeached.
Bannon's gripe against Kushner in Vanity Fair continues: He claims that Donald Trump's disparaging tweets about Attorney
General Jeff Sessions were designed to provide "cover" for Kushner by steering negative media attention toward Sessions and away
from Kushner as he was scheduled to testify before a Senate committee.
There's even more hot Bannon on Kushner action. Bannon tells of an Oval Office meeting he attended with Trump, Kushner and
Kushner's wife Ivanka Trump in which he called Ivanka "the queen of leaks." "You're a fucking liar!" Ivanka allegedly responded.
Hard to know how to score this round, but shattering the public image of Ivanka as poised princess must have been satisfying for
a guy who called Javanka "the Democrats."
Getting mauled by Steve Bannon might not be the worst thing to happen to the president's son-in-law this week. He and Ivanka
were
sued by a private attorney for failing to disclose assets from 30 investment funds on their federal financial disclosure forms.
Perhaps more ominous for Kushner,
and according
to the New York Times , federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have subpoenaed Deutsche Bank records about Kushner's family's
real estate business. "There is no indication that the subpoena is related to the investigation being conducted by Robert S. Mueller
III," the Times allowed. Yeah, but wouldn't you want to be there when Mueller's team invites Bannon in to talk to him about
the Vanity Fair article, and they ask him, "What did you mean about Jared taking meetings with Russians to get additional
stuff? Like, what stuff?"
Although "people close to Kushner, who decline to be named" told the Times they don't think the Mueller investigation
exposes him to legal jeopardy, the young prince isn't taking chances. The Washington Post
reports that his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has been shopping for a "crisis public relations firm" over the past two weeks. (Senator
Robert Menendez, the recent beneficiary of a deadlocked corruption trial, is another Lowell client.)
Why hire super flacks now? Does Kushner sense disaster? Another Bannon offensive? The Flynn plea bargain exposed him -- according
to the press -- as the "very senior member" of the Trump transition team described in court documents who told former national security
adviser Michael Flynn to lobby the Russian ambassador about a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements. Maybe he's just buying reputation
insurance. Or maybe he's taken to heart Chris Christie's scathing comments. Christie was squeezed out of the Trump transition early
on, some say by Kushner who is said to hold a grudge against Christie who, when he was federal prosecutor, put Kushner's father in
jail . This week Christie
said that
Kushner "deserves the scrutiny" he's been getting. It was almost as if Christie and Bannon were operating a twin-handled grinder,
cranking out an extra helping of Kushner's tainted reputation.
President Putin and President Trump occupied the same page about the scandal this week in what was either a matter of collusion
or of great minds thinking alike. Speaking at a four-hour media event in Moscow, Putin
blamed
the scandal on the U.S. "deep state" and said, "This is all made up by people who oppose Trump to make his work look illegitimate."
According to CNN , Trump
took the opportunity this week to call the Russia investigation "bullshit" in private. In public, he told reporters, "There's absolutely
no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it."
Everybody, perhaps, except former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Appearing on
CNN , Clapper used direct language to bind former KGB officer Putin to Trump tighter than a girdle to a paunch. "[Putin] knows
how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said. "I think some of that experience and instincts
of Putin has come into play here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our president."
Writing in
Newsweek , Jeff Stein collected other tell-tale signs of Trump's cooptation: He refused to take Russian meddling in the election
seriously. He responds favorably to Putin's praise and seems to crave more. He dismisses worries about his circle's connections to
Kremlin agents before the election and during the transition -- and he tried to call off the Flynn investigation.
It's enough to make you wonder why Bannon thinks Kushner is the enemy, not Trump.
******
If you've read this far, you're probably disappointed that more didn't happen in the Trump Tower scandal this week. Sue me
in small claims court via email to [email protected]. My
email alerts
never believed in collusion, my Twitter feed is set to cut a plea
deal with Mueller, and my RSS feed has several crisis PR
firms on retainer.
The key reason of Trump victory was the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA -- voters rejected candidates from two major and
discredited parties and elected outsider -- Trump is vain hopes that he can change the situation for the better (similar hope were
during lection of Obama who also positioned himself as an outsider). So far it looks like he betrayed his voters becoming
"Republican Obama" with fame "Make America Great Again" slogan (great for whom, for military industrial complex ?) instead of
Obama fake slogan "change we can believe in".
Notable quotes:
"... The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. ..."
"... Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present ..."
"... Trump has claimed he has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are going to be disappointed. ..."
"... Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about: ..."
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false.
Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER
the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present.
Is the investigation a sham? Most of what you read about it is supposition coming from partisan reporters working for partisan
newspapers. The actual facts are few and far between.
Manafort was clearly influence-peddling but for Turkey and a Ukrainian oligarch. Flynn clear did lie but his actions, requesting
Russia delay a response to the expulsion of diplomat and that Russia block a resolution against Israel, appear not to be of themselves
illegal. Trump Jr holding a meeting with a Maltese professor of international relations, a Russian criminal lawyer and a "niece"
of Putin who wasn't in fact a niece of Putin was neither here nor there unless Trump Jr. lied to the FBI.
There is no evidence that the Steele dossier corroborates any of the above acts, but if the Obama regime really used it to
get a FISA warrant then that needs to be investigated. Even the author of the dossier admits it might be 30% wrong.
As for Jill Stein, it's news to me that Mueller is investigating her when it seems to be some Democrats in the Senate who are
doing so.
There have been a lot of "leaks" about the Mueller investigation but most reports suggest none of the leaks come from the investigation
itself which seems to be watertight. It's a matter of waiting and seeing what comes out later and that Trump has claimed he
has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are
going to be disappointed. And nobody can then say that they weren't warned.
What was the lie? You have the "lie" and no one else has it. There is no lie. There wasn't even a lie to Pence. Flynn was NSC
advisor, prior campaign and transition advisor on Nation Security. He was protecting the President's "moves" and doing the President's
business.
Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated
out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to
deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about:
Russia hacked Hillary's server.
Putin poisoned the dissident.
Putin shot the reporter.
Kremlin killed Nemstov on the bridge,
Assad used chemical weapons,
Russia invaded Crimea,
It's all memes for people to accept as facts. Mike Flynn's job is to lie to everyone but his commander-in-chief. That's what
he did. In other words, he told "the truth" which everyone should know could be a lie. Flynn was working for President-elect Trump
as his top Intel man. Of course, he would lie. He spent 33 years in military Intel, rose to the top and told a million lies. Spies
lie. Espionage is about truth and untruth.
"... My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every page. ..."
"... It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a "Kremlin agent." ..."
"... There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it well in advance.) ..."
"... Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those that own "our" government will change. ..."
In the "mainstream media" Mueller is always pictured as deep-thinking and contemplative. In
fact he is a foaming-at-the-mouth, scheming, power-hungry, unscrupulous Boris Karloff
lookalike who has been secretly working on the Clintons' behalf most of his adult life.
I hope this era of public credulity and secret government wickedness is coming to a close.
But too many Americans still rely on TV for information. It is indeed tragic. One can only
hope people aren't as stupid in other parts of the world.
My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided
with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a
site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is
pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every
page.
It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the
privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a
"Kremlin agent."
There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus
needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it
well in advance.)
Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those
that own "our" government will change.
Mr. Buchanan demonstrated convincingly that a liberal war-prone conspiracy is going on
against President Trump. Nobody understands why Trump hasn't drained the FBI swamp of the
Obama and Clinton mafia. The whole Mueller so-called investigation into nothing sucks out
loud. Mueller is not an honest man like the liberals claim. He was in charge when 9/11
happened, and he covered it up. That's why Mueller could serve under Bush and Obama. He
belongs to the crooked and criminal DC political establishment. The FBI is nothing than a
criminal organization serving the corrupt power elite. I do feel bad for the ordinary FBI
agents who face the music and to take the blame for their superior thugs. The crooked US
political elites should stop teaching other peoples a lesson in democracy or ethical
behavior. It makes me wanna puke.
What bunk! The "investigation" has always been intended to remove Trump from office. There is
nothing the FBI or DOJ could say to me I would believe concerning the results of the
"investigation". The FBI has become Beria's NKVD. As Beria said, "You show me the man and
I'll show you the crime". What do you think is going on here?
"Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?", you ask. Where have you
been for 11 months?
Comey's "preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing", you write. What
preemption? I am sure Obama himself told Comey to say that Hillary should not be indicted!
Under Trump's new tax plan, those from leftist, very high tax states will no longer be
able to get the previous federal tax break because of their high state tax.
Leftists wanted a neo-Marxist state, OK, they will now have to pay for all of it.
This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out
by what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump. The only thing I would
take exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be
"Kremlin" based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of
the Putin government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling
the Clinton researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments
would be forthcoming.
This does seem likely, but it's not writ in stone.
Rather obvious Steele made it all up.
That, too. *Meets with Russian contact, holds out dossier* "Here, hand me this, so I can
honestly say I got it from you."
He was in charge when 9/11 happened, and he covered it up.
He got the job like a week before 9/11, but yeah, he did cover up the gov't's bumbling.
100% swamp creature.
Trump needs to find a real cop inside the FBI, one without a law degree, and put him in
charge.
Perhaps not but we will still have to subsidize the poor red states, because negroes and
mestizos, Democrat constituencies, so the negroes and mestizos in welfare states will
continue to be a drain on the economy
It's very difficult to get the head wrapped around the Mueller investigation as a contrivance
to avoid going after Clinton, which shows a corrupted intelligence service working for
political ends and saving the Democratic Party, which needs replacing. The evidence against
Clinton is much more substantial than the continuing Mueller foray into inconsequence. If you
need more on Clinton beyond the massive email problems she had to avoid revealing how much
pay money she was getting, search on the DNC convention entirely corrupted over to her and
then the Uranium One deal. Why is all this not being investigated? It should be Clinton-Gate
not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been
hoodwinked into believing government falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of
Iraq.
"... It's why journalists like Luke Harding and Anne Applebaum want their readers to believe they are part of James Bond-style events in Moscow, where KGB agents are breaking in their windows and stealing their purses. More than anything else, those dubious tales are about confirming their own relevance and making sure their readers know how 'important' they are: Look at me, I was brave enough to venture into the Russian abyss, please acknowledge my efforts with endless praise and adulation. ..."
Good hatchet job in RT on the Steele
dossier (which links to a
Tablet investigation
worth reading) which explains why you shouldn't pay too much attention to what writers like Luke Harding (The Guardian) and Anne
Applebaum (The Washington Post) output:
But Ohr hasn't lived in Russia for decades either -- and she isn't a spy or a journalist, as Smith notes. This presumably is
why much of the 'reporting' in the dossier is based on rumor and hearsay; the kind of information that gets bandied around
in Moscow's expat circles where everyone is trying to one-up each other by claiming to have 'insider' knowledge.
This phenomenon is actually key to understanding not just Russiagate, but Western reporting on Russia in general. It's almost
a kind of Cold War nostalgia. Journalists are lured by the prospect of appearing to be 'in on' the latest Kremlin intrigue
or, even better, the appearance that they are so important that the Kremlin is out to get them; that they are truly living
on the edge.
It's why journalists like Luke Harding and Anne Applebaum want their readers to believe they are part of James Bond-style
events in Moscow, where KGB agents are breaking in their windows and stealing their purses. More than anything else, those
dubious tales are about confirming their own relevance and making sure their readers know how 'important' they are: Look at
me, I was brave enough to venture into the Russian abyss, please acknowledge my efforts with endless praise and adulation.
Anne Applebaum is now at the "London School of Economics as a Professor of Practice at the Institute for Global Affairs. At
the LSE she runs Arena, a program on disinformation and 21st century propaganda". She should be well versed in disinformation
and 21st century propaganda because she's been delivering it on behalf of the Washington establishment for quite some time although
I suspect her program is a "hit job" on Moscow.
Annie applepants is a confirmed Russia hater... she never lets up even when he husband loses his position in the polish political
process... and it explains why she is given regular opportunities to express her views in the CIA outlet - WaPo..
"... My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every page. ..."
"... It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a "Kremlin agent." ..."
"... There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it well in advance.) ..."
"... Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those that own "our" government will change. ..."
In the "mainstream media" Mueller is always pictured as deep-thinking and contemplative. In
fact he is a foaming-at-the-mouth, scheming, power-hungry, unscrupulous Boris Karloff
lookalike who has been secretly working on the Clintons' behalf most of his adult life.
I hope this era of public credulity and secret government wickedness is coming to a close.
But too many Americans still rely on TV for information. It is indeed tragic. One can only
hope people aren't as stupid in other parts of the world.
My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided
with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a
site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is
pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every
page.
It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the
privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a
"Kremlin agent."
There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus
needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it
well in advance.)
Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those
that own "our" government will change.
Mr. Buchanan demonstrated convincingly that a liberal war-prone conspiracy is going on
against President Trump. Nobody understands why Trump hasn't drained the FBI swamp of the
Obama and Clinton mafia. The whole Mueller so-called investigation into nothing sucks out
loud. Mueller is not an honest man like the liberals claim. He was in charge when 9/11
happened, and he covered it up. That's why Mueller could serve under Bush and Obama. He
belongs to the crooked and criminal DC political establishment. The FBI is nothing than a
criminal organization serving the corrupt power elite. I do feel bad for the ordinary FBI
agents who face the music and to take the blame for their superior thugs. The crooked US
political elites should stop teaching other peoples a lesson in democracy or ethical
behavior. It makes me wanna puke.
What bunk! The "investigation" has always been intended to remove Trump from office. There is
nothing the FBI or DOJ could say to me I would believe concerning the results of the
"investigation". The FBI has become Beria's NKVD. As Beria said, "You show me the man and
I'll show you the crime". What do you think is going on here?
"Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?", you ask. Where have you
been for 11 months?
Comey's "preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing", you write. What
preemption? I am sure Obama himself told Comey to say that Hillary should not be indicted!
Under Trump's new tax plan, those from leftist, very high tax states will no longer be
able to get the previous federal tax break because of their high state tax.
Leftists wanted a neo-Marxist state, OK, they will now have to pay for all of it.
This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out
by what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump. The only thing I would
take exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be
"Kremlin" based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of
the Putin government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling
the Clinton researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments
would be forthcoming.
This does seem likely, but it's not writ in stone.
Rather obvious Steele made it all up.
That, too. *Meets with Russian contact, holds out dossier* "Here, hand me this, so I can
honestly say I got it from you."
He was in charge when 9/11 happened, and he covered it up.
He got the job like a week before 9/11, but yeah, he did cover up the gov't's bumbling.
100% swamp creature.
Trump needs to find a real cop inside the FBI, one without a law degree, and put him in
charge.
Perhaps not but we will still have to subsidize the poor red states, because negroes and
mestizos, Democrat constituencies, so the negroes and mestizos in welfare states will
continue to be a drain on the economy
Essentially FBI has pushed Sunders under the bus and as such rigged the elections. In no way
Hillary can become candidate if she woouls have benn charged with "gross negligence". In this
sense they are criminals.
Notable quotes:
"... And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious? First, whether or not to indict was a decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing. Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been "extremely careless" with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of "gross negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify indictment. ..."
"... Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry McAuliffe. ..."
"... Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase "gross negligence" was key FBI agent Peter Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation of the "idiot" Trump. After one meeting with "Andy" (McCabe), Strzok told Page an "insurance policy" was needed to keep Trump out of the White House. ..."
"... JFK wanted to break the CIA into a million pieces and I think Trump needs to shatter the FBI into a million pieces after these latest revelations. The FBI stinks to high heaven and have for quite a long time now. They have become a highly politicized federal law enforcement agency ..."
"... If any Joe or Jane Shmo at Boeing or Lockheed-Martin had done what Hillary did he or she would have been fired and fined or jailed or both. His or hers security clearance would have been permanently revoked. So much for liberty and justice for all. ..."
"... What was the original mandate for Robert Mueller? If after all this time he has not been able to find any connection between Trump campaign and Putin then that phase of the investigation must end. The Justice Department appointed him and they should put a stop to that portion of the investigation. They can always give him a new mandate to investigate Hillary campaign's connection with Russia. These investigations should never be open ended. Lots of money is wasted and it gives the investigator an opportunity to satisfy personal vendetta. ..."
"... This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out by what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump. ..."
"... The only thing I would take exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be "Kremlin" based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of the Putin government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling the Clinton researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments would be forthcoming. ..."
The original question the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was to answer was a simple
one: Did he do it?
Did Trump, or officials with his knowledge, collude with Vladimir Putin's Russia to hack the
emails of John Podesta and the DNC, and leak the contents to damage Hillary Clinton and elect
Donald Trump?
A year and a half into the investigation, and, still, no "collusion" has been found. Yet the
investigation goes on, at the demand of the never-Trump media and Beltway establishment.
Hence, and understandably, suspicions have arisen.
Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?
Set aside the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory momentarily, and consider a rival explanation
for what is going down here:
That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop
Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. Having failed, they conspired to break Trump's presidency,
overturn his mandate and bring him down.
Essential to any such project was first to block any indictment of Hillary for transmitting
national security secrets over her private email server. That first objective was achieved 18
months ago.
On July 5, 2016, Comey stepped before a stunned press corps to declare that, given the
evidence gathered by the FBI, "no reasonable prosecutor" would indict Clinton. Therefore, that
was the course he, Comey, was recommending. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, compromised by her
infamous 35-minute tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton -- to discuss golf and grandkids --
seconded Comey's decision.
And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious? First, whether or not to indict was a
decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption
of Justice Department authority was astonishing. Second, while Comey said in his statement that
Hillary had been "extremely careless" with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was
declared guilty of "gross negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify
indictment.
Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a
munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry
McAuliffe.
Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase "gross negligence" was key FBI agent Peter
Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation
of the "idiot" Trump. After one meeting with "Andy" (McCabe), Strzok told Page an "insurance
policy" was needed to keep Trump out of the White House.
Also, it appears Comey began drafting his exoneration statement of Hillary before the FBI
had even interviewed her. And when the FBI did, Hillary was permitted to have her lawyers
present.
One need not be a conspiracy nut to conclude the fix was in, and a pass for Hillary wired
from the get-go. Comey, McCabe, Strzok were not going to recommend an indictment that would
blow Hillary out of the water and let the Trump Tower crowd waltz into the White House.
Yet, if Special Counsel Robert Mueller cannot find any Trump collusion with the Kremlin to
tilt the outcome of the 2016 election, his investigators might have another look at the Clinton
campaign.
For there a Russian connection has been established.
Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to
ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his "dirty dossier" that was distributed
to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump.
And who hired Steele to tie Trump to Russia?
Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit into which the DNC and Clinton campaign pumped millions
through law firm Perkins Coie.
Let's review the bidding.
The "dirty dossier," a mixture of fabrications, falsehoods and half-truths, created to
destroy Trump and make Hillary president, was the product of a British spy's collusion with
Kremlin agents.
In Dec. 26′s Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough writes that the FBI relied on this
Kremlin-Steele dossier of allegations and lies to base their decision "to open a
counterintelligence investigation (of Trump)." And press reports "cite the document's
disinformation in requests for court-approved wiretaps."
If this is true, a critical questions arises:
Has the Mueller probe been so contaminated by anti-Trump bias and reliance on Kremlin
fabrications that any indictment it brings will be suspect in the eyes of the American
people?
Director Comey has been fired. FBI No. 2 McCabe is now being retired under a cloud.
Mueller's top FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, and lover Lisa, have been discharged. And Mueller
is left to rely upon a passel of prosecutors whose common denominator appears to be that they
loathe Trump and made contributions to Hillary.
Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had his "Get Hoffa Squad" to take down Teamsters boss Jimmy
Hoffa. J. Edgar Hoover had his vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King. Is history repeating
itself -- with the designated target of an elite FBI cabal being the President of the United
States?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
JFK wanted to break the CIA into a million pieces and I think Trump needs to shatter the FBI
into a million pieces after these latest revelations. The FBI stinks to high heaven and have
for quite a long time now. They have become a highly politicized federal law enforcement
agency who often collaborate with mortal enemies of America like the ADL and other "watchdog"
groups in addition to assuming the biases of said organizations against certain groups of
Americans.
They behave like a bunch of cowboys and police state thugs and their treatment of and
unnecessary raid on Paul Manafort's home was just the tip of the iceberg. The FBI is becoming
a clear and present danger to civil liberties.
Trump was a bit of a wild card to the establishment elites. He lived in the public spotlight
for most of his adult life, so his foibles were well known, and he had too much money to be
bought off. Mueller was given his job to make sure Trump doesn't stray too far from the
elitists program. He appears to have been cowed and is walking the straight left of center
republican line, now.
"For there a Russian connection has been established.
Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to
ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his "dirty dossier" that was
distributed to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump."
No worries -- as long as somebody can still accuse "Kremlin agents" of something, the
Establishment will be just fine.
Time for Mr. Napolitano to take his turn at the spinning wheel?
Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been "extremely careless"
with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of "gross
negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify indictment.
If any Joe or Jane Shmo at Boeing or Lockheed-Martin had done what Hillary did he or she
would have been fired and fined or jailed or both. His or hers security clearance would have
been permanently revoked. So much for liberty and justice for all.
What was the original mandate for Robert Mueller? If after all this time he has not been
able to find any connection between Trump campaign and Putin then that phase of the
investigation must end. The Justice Department appointed him and they should put a stop to
that portion of the investigation. They can always give him a new mandate to investigate
Hillary campaign's connection with Russia. These investigations should never be open ended.
Lots of money is wasted and it gives the investigator an opportunity to satisfy personal
vendetta.
This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out by
what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump.
The only thing I would take
exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be "Kremlin"
based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of the Putin
government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling the Clinton
researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments would be
forthcoming.
"... "WOW, @foxandfrlends "Dossier is bogus. Clinton Campaign, DNC funded Dossier. FBI CANNOT (after all of this time) VERIFY CLAIMS IN DOSSIER OF RUSSIA/TRUMP COLLUSION. FBI TAINTED." ..."
"... Rooney said the agency – and in particular Peter Strzok, a top FBI agent who was involved in the Hillary Clinton email investigation – needs to be purged. ..."
"... "I would like to see the directors of those agencies purge it," Rooney said. "And say, look, we've got a lot of great agents, a lot of great lawyers here, those are the people that I want the American people to see and know the good works being done, not these people who are kind of the deep state." ..."
"... On Saturday and Sunday, Trump targeted FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose role in the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server has come under scrutiny because his wife, Jill McCabe, accepted $450,000 in campaign contributions from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's PAC and more than $207,000 from the state Democratic Party when she ran for Virginia state Senate in 2015 -- money donated before McCabe was promoted to deputy director. ..."
President Donald Trump on Tuesday asserted that the FBI is "tainted" and it is using a "bogus" dossier alleging ties between his
campaign and Russia to go after him.
"WOW, @foxandfrlends "Dossier is bogus. Clinton Campaign, DNC funded Dossier. FBI CANNOT (after all of this time) VERIFY
CLAIMS IN DOSSIER OF RUSSIA/TRUMP COLLUSION. FBI TAINTED."
And they used this Crooked Hillary pile of garbage as the basis for going after the Trump Campaign!" Trump tweeted. Trump
seemed to reference a segment from "Fox & Friends," a TV show that the president watches and often praises. GOP Rep. Francis
Rooney on Tuesday also raised doubt about the FBI's intentions. The Florida congressman said during an interview on MSNBC that
the "American people have very high standards" for government agencies and suggested they aren't being met. Rooney said
the agency – and in particular Peter Strzok, a top FBI agent who was involved in the Hillary Clinton email investigation – needs
to be purged.
"I would like to see the directors of those agencies purge it," Rooney said. "And say, look, we've got a lot of great agents,
a lot of great lawyers here, those are the people that I want the American people to see and know the good works being done, not
these people who are kind of the deep state."
The president's Tuesday tweet followed a series the president posted over the holiday weekend bashing the FBI and its leadership.
On Saturday and Sunday, Trump targeted FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose role in the investigation into former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server has come under scrutiny because his wife, Jill McCabe, accepted $450,000
in campaign contributions from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's PAC and more than $207,000 from the state Democratic Party when she
ran for Virginia state Senate in 2015 -- money donated before McCabe was promoted to deputy director.
In two of his weekend tweets, Trump referenced something he saw on Fox News.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 3:27 PM-Dec 23, 2017
How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin' James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton
investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife's campaign by Clinton Puppets during
investigation?
Donald J. Trump О @realDonaldTrump 3:30 PM-Dec 23, 2017
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 3:32 PM-Dec 23, 2017
Wow, "FBI lawyer James Baker reassigned," according to @FoxNews.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 7:25 AM-Dec 24, 2017
@FoxNews-FBI's Andrew McCabe, "in addition to his wife getting all of this money from M (Clinton Puppet), he was using, allegedly,
his FBI Official Email Account to promote her campaign. You obviously cannot do this. These were the people who were investigating
Hillary Clinton."
McCabe is expected to retire in the new year, according to a Washington Post
report .
So now we know who requested the raw intelligence on Team Trump with the names of American
Citizens 'unmasked'. It was then National Security Advisor Susan Rice:
White House lawyers last month discovered that the former national security adviser Susan
Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of
occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S.
officials familiar with the matter.
The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the
government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not
targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally.
Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in
reports as something like "U.S. Person One."
Maybe she will claim a video caused her to commit a felony?
As I noted
a while back , while Obama and Loretta Lynch authorized the expansion of who could request
the unmasking of Americans caught up in surveillance, the process still required a paper trail
of who the request was from and for what purpose. From the law itself:
For every entity in the US Intelligence Community involved with the intercepts of Team
Trump, the head of that entity should have filled out this request, including:
(U) Use of information. The IC element will explain how it will use the raw SIGINT,
to include identifying the particular authorized foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence missions or functions that are the basis for its request .
Skipping down, we get to another key item: who reviewed and approved these requests:
C. (U) Evaluation of requests. A high-level NSA official designated by the DIRNSA will
review requests for raw SIGINT covered by these Procedures. NSA will document its
approval decisions in writing and include a statement explaining how the request fully
complies with paragraph A.
OK, a key person who should have participated in the legal distribution of intercepts
involving members of Team Trump would be the Director of NSA and whomever they designated
to review the requests.
Note that the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) is accepting the requests made
by the National Security Advisor (a different NSA). Today that would be one Michael Rogers, who
had to review and concur on Rice's request.
Interesting enough, one would have thought the FBI would be the organization with due cause
to unmask Americans for investigation. Why would the head of NSA be investigating Americans and
violating their 4th Amendment rights?
Well, that seems pretty obvious given that all this ill-gotten information landed in the
hands of the left wing news media, to fuel diversionary stories about some elusive
Trump-Russian connection. The fact this information takes a left turn through the office of NSA
on its way to the news media is telling in itself.
Clearly what caught Susan Rice was the paper trail of her requests, as is confirmed in the
article:
In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in
intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the
attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests
and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.
The strange thing is, if not for all the leaks to the newspapers, I doubt this review of the
logs would have happened! She and Team Obama triggered their own demise.
Of course, all this was leaked to a Dem-Friendly news outlet, which tried to spin this as a
nothing-burger and claim this is not the smoking gun.
But of course it's the smoking gun!
Let's pick up where the left wing news media tried to stop us from proceeding. Who tipped
off Rice on which raw data to unmask? And who was unmasked? The answers will inform us on her
intentions.
For example, if Rice's request was broad and yielded a range of Americans unmasked that
would be a general request without a target.
But if her request was against specific events with specific foreign players, which only
yielded results that led to only Team Trump, then that is a different matter. That
would be political targeting and a felony.
Finally, Susan Rice would never, ever do this on her own initiative. She would
never risk "The Obama Legacy" over this. A legacy, I must say, that is now in tatters based on
this news. It is just a question of whether the destruction of his legacy was due to ineptitude
or criminal intent.
There is much more to learn here. Everyone who did this knew they were crossing some serious
lines. They knew this because they had to put in place the processes to allow it. And since
these unmasking processes were laid out in January of this year, everyone knew they were up to,
if not over, those Constitutional lines.
Rice should be pulled in front of Congress and asked point blank under what authority was
she, the National Security Advisor, requesting names of US Citizens and their communication
contenrs? Recall, some of these requests are not related to Russia at all!
This article and discussion now is almost one year old, but some people predicted that Trump will betray all his
election promises with ease and will just try to survive color regulation against him and pander to Wall Street, Israel and
neocons. Which is what he is currently doing. He proved to be far below the intellectual level required for a good president
of such country as the USA. Blunders that he already did are inexcusable. May be this is age.
Notable quotes:
"... The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system. ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble"). ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. ..."
"... My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as Crosstalk recently characterized him?) ..."
"... He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system. ..."
"... Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us with their own words. ..."
"... Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people," whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to make it happen. ..."
"... Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion. Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. ..."
"... A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as a guest. ..."
The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump
are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal
Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not
want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially
oppose the entire political system.
... ... ...
It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of
the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian
masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for
English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or
"rabble").
It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are
now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods.
And if their own country has to go down in their struggle against the common people –
so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction whatsoever to destroy the nation
their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class interest. They did just that to
Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will not get away with that again
in 2017.
Trump is part of neocon. If anything, trump is part of color revolution, not against it. I
do not see his administration turn out well with his action so far.
Trump is also a idiot. Any one pitch a fight with a neighbor like he is doing is not suit to
deal with relation.
Talk about relation, check out internet video clips and see how much respect he give to his
wife.
My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a
champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as
Crosstalk recently characterized him?)
So who is there to champion the people and oppose the monstrous elite? Us -- just us. Each
and all of us, and we need to get our acts together. If there is no 'great leader' then we
have to lead ourselves: distributed leadership with collective intelligence and power.
He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he
is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system.
We need to make sure we take out garbage in every election, we will win in the end.
we can not only see things in one perspective. But it seems not something come naturally
out side of east Asia.
I don't understand why everything has to be either controlled opposition or controlled
support.
Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of
neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really
is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot
of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be
readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely
the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us
with their own words.
Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as
outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people,"
whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for
their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent
from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how
radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to
make it happen.
The readers of this website should cheer Trump's willingness to trample on the neoliberal
narrative, but their own livelihoods will not be guaranteed by Trump or anyone else in
power.
Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion.
Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. So I am fully for get rid of her, and do
not let Trump getting away with anything. So far, trump's actions are pity, until he cause
some real war somewhere. I love to see MSM got taken down.
Khrushchev says to Zhou Enlai, "The difference between the Soviet Union and China is that
I rose to power from the peasant class, whereas you came from the privileged Mandarin class."
Zhou replies, "True. But there is this similarity. Each of us is a traitor to his class."
I don't know if this is a true story, but Trump may end up obliged to betray his class
like others have done in the past if we assume all rich people belong to the same class with
homogeneous interests.
A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social
elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed
the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as
a guest.
He isn't a member of "the elite" – other than the one of his own making. It's an odd thing but true.
Color revolutions are false flag operations of regime change based on deception, fueling the resentment and delegitimization+ of
the elected government and fake promises to population.
Notable quotes:
"... color revolutions are psychosocial operations of deception. ..."
"... It's a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend millions of dollars to co-opt and "channel" local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership. ..."
"... Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations: destabilization without the tanks. ..."
"... History shows that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other, sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov's dogs. ..."
"... to help deconstruct the deception ..."
"... A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy--only a tool -- the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ ..."
Color revolutions are, without a doubt, one of the main features of global political developments today. Should the casual reader
immediately wonder what a "color revolution" is, keep reading, our view here is unique, but we most certainly have some answers.
Let us first begin with the Wikipedia definition. That website introduces the concept by stating the following:
"Color revolution(s)is a term used by the media to describe related [political] movements that developed
in several societies in the CIS (former USSR) and Balkan states during the early 2000s. Some observers have called the events
a revolutionary wave .
"Participants in the color revolutions have mostly used
nonviolent resistance , also called
civil resistance . Such methods as demonstrations,
strikes and interventions havebeen [used to] protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate
democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change. These movements all adopted a specific color or flower as their
symbol. The color revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and particularly
student activists in organizing creative non-violent
resistance.
"These movements have been successful in Serbia (especially the
Bulldozer Revolution of 2000), in Georgia's
Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine's
Orange Revolution (2004), in Lebanon's
Cedar Revolution and (though more violent than the
previous ones) in Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution (2005),
in Kuwait's Blue Revolution (2005), in Iraq's Purple Revolution (2005), and in Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution (1989), but
failed in Iran's Green Revolution
(2009–2010) . Each time massive street protests followed disputed elections or request of fair elections and led to the resignation
or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be
authoritarian ."
What the Wikipedia article fails to mention is the massive foreign funding, and at least any notion that color revolutions
are psychosocial operations of deception.
It's a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend
millions of dollars to co-opt and "channel" local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership.
Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations:
destabilization without the tanks.
The secret ingredient is a sophisticated science used to manipulate emotions and circumvent critical thinking. History shows
that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other,
sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov's dogs. These days the manipulation is so pervasive,
so subtle, so effective, that even critical individuals at times must necessarily fail to recognize how often -- or in what context
-- they have fallen prey.
Of course fear is the most obvious emotion played upon to effect massive social change. One need only to reflect upon the last
ten years, since 9/11, to know that fear is a primary instrument used to initiate and justify dangerous shifts in public policy.
But as humanity has been physiologically equipped with a range of emotions, and is not merely arrested and controlled by fear
alone, a strata of behavioral and political science also found it useful to master the flip-side of the emotional spectrum, and by
that we mean desire, and all that drives groups of individuals to act, even in the face of fear, in pursuit of something worthwhile.
Many are the professions that utilize this type of understanding, including (but not limited to) marketing, advertising, public
relations, politics and law-making, radio, television, journalism and news, film, music, general business and salesmanship; each
of them selling, branding, promoting, entertaining, sloganeering, framing, explaining, creating friends and enemies, arguing likes
and dislikes, setting the boundaries of good and evil: in many cases using their talents to circumvent their audiences' intellect,
the real target being emotional, oftentimes even subconscious.
(Legs for educational purposes only)
Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular
one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval.
It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers
in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents,
local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental
organizations.
Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets
with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with
the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor.
Because the operatives perform much of their craft in the open, their effectiveness is heavily predicated upon their ability to
veil the influence backing them, and the long-term intentions guiding their work.
Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading
interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events.
And this is where we come in: to help deconstruct the deception .
But we will not just cover color revolutions here, as color revolutions are bound up in the larger geopolitical universe.
A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy--only a tool -- the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages
gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ . It follows that understanding geopolitical context (and motive)
is necessary to understanding the purpose of the color revolution.
Toward that end, we will discuss and analyze relationships of global power in great detail. We will highlight specific institutions
of power; identify what their power rests upon; draw attention to the individuals that finance and direct their activities; speculate
upon some of their motives; and get to know the broad range of tools they use to achieve them, tools which include the color revolution.
As in-depth studies into the color revolution are far too rare, and as the issue itself is far too obscure, we hope to draw more
attention to it; to spark discussion and even debate.
It is an issue that takes time and patience. And it is for those that are willing to provide this time and patience that we offer
this site.
"Never utter these words: 'I do not know this, therefore it is false.' One must study to know; know to understand; understand
to judge." --Apothegm of Narada
This article and discussion now is almost one year old, but some people predicted that Trump will betray all his
election promises with ease and will just try to survive color regulation against him and pander to Wall Street, Israel and
neocons. Which is what he is currently doing. He proved to be far below the intellectual level required for a good president
of such country as the USA. Blunders that he already did are inexcusable. May be this is age.
Notable quotes:
"... The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system. ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble"). ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. ..."
"... My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as Crosstalk recently characterized him?) ..."
"... He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system. ..."
"... Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us with their own words. ..."
"... Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people," whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to make it happen. ..."
"... Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion. Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. ..."
"... A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as a guest. ..."
The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump
are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal
Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not
want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially
oppose the entire political system.
... ... ...
It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of
the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian
masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for
English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or
"rabble").
It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are
now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods.
And if their own country has to go down in their struggle against the common people –
so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction whatsoever to destroy the nation
their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class interest. They did just that to
Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will not get away with that again
in 2017.
Trump is part of neocon. If anything, trump is part of color revolution, not against it. I
do not see his administration turn out well with his action so far.
Trump is also a idiot. Any one pitch a fight with a neighbor like he is doing is not suit to
deal with relation.
Talk about relation, check out internet video clips and see how much respect he give to his
wife.
My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a
champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as
Crosstalk recently characterized him?)
So who is there to champion the people and oppose the monstrous elite? Us -- just us. Each
and all of us, and we need to get our acts together. If there is no 'great leader' then we
have to lead ourselves: distributed leadership with collective intelligence and power.
He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he
is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system.
We need to make sure we take out garbage in every election, we will win in the end.
we can not only see things in one perspective. But it seems not something come naturally
out side of east Asia.
I don't understand why everything has to be either controlled opposition or controlled
support.
Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of
neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really
is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot
of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be
readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely
the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us
with their own words.
Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as
outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people,"
whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for
their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent
from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how
radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to
make it happen.
The readers of this website should cheer Trump's willingness to trample on the neoliberal
narrative, but their own livelihoods will not be guaranteed by Trump or anyone else in
power.
Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion.
Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. So I am fully for get rid of her, and do
not let Trump getting away with anything. So far, trump's actions are pity, until he cause
some real war somewhere. I love to see MSM got taken down.
Khrushchev says to Zhou Enlai, "The difference between the Soviet Union and China is that
I rose to power from the peasant class, whereas you came from the privileged Mandarin class."
Zhou replies, "True. But there is this similarity. Each of us is a traitor to his class."
I don't know if this is a true story, but Trump may end up obliged to betray his class
like others have done in the past if we assume all rich people belong to the same class with
homogeneous interests.
A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social
elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed
the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as
a guest.
He isn't a member of "the elite" – other than the one of his own making. It's an odd thing but true.
Trump is now 100% pure neocon. What a metamorphose is less a year from inauguration...
Notable quotes:
"... It says, with extreme hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people." ..."
"... A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of offensive capabilities." ..."
"... Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely. ..."
"... And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might well dispute. ..."
"... So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated, something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United States. ..."
If one takes Trump at his word, the U.S. will use force worldwide to make sure that only
Washington can dominate regionally, a frightening thought as it goes beyond even the wildest
pretensions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And equally ridiculous are the potential
consequences of such bullying – the White House clearly believes that it will make other
nations respect us and follow our leadership whereas quite the reverse is likely to be
true.
On the very limited bright side, Trump did have good things to say about the benefits
derived from intelligence sharing with Russia and he also spoke about both Moscow and Beijing
as "rivals" and "adversaries" instead of enemies. That was very refreshing to hear but
unfortunately the printed document did not say the same thing.
The NSS report provided considerably more detail than did the speech but it also was full of
generalizations and all too often relied on Washington group think to frame its options. The
beginning is somewhat terrifying for one of my inclinations on foreign policy:
"An America that is safe, prosperous, and free at home is an America with the strength,
confidence, and will to lead abroad. It is an America that can preserve peace, uphold liberty,
and create enduring advantages for the American people. Putting America first is the duty of
our government and the foundation for U.S. leadership in the world. A strong America is in the
vital interests of not only the American people, but also those around the world who want to
partner with the United States in pursuit of shared interests, values, and aspirations."
One has to ask what this "lead" and "leadership" and "partner" nonsense actually represents,
particularly in light of the fact that damn near the entire world just repudiated Trump's
decision to move the American Embassy in Israel as well as the nearly global rejection of his
response to climate change? And Washington's alleged need to lead has brought nothing but grief
to the American people starting in Korea and continuing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and
numerous lesser stops along the way in places like Somalia, Panama and Syria. The false
narrative of the threat coming from "foreigners" has actually done nothing to make Americans
safer while also diminishing constitutional liberties and doing serious damage to the
economy.
The printed report is much more brutal than was Trump about the dangers facing America and
it is also much more carefree in the "facts" that it chooses to present. It says, with extreme
hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests,
attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies
less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to
repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to
destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people."
A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written
report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of
America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions
and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness
to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its
neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of
offensive capabilities."
Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone
is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is
the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump
approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from
Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely.
And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant
preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist
organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the
cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin
Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it
was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might
well dispute.
So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of
the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump
might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to
strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated,
something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe
they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how
Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to
get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way
of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United
States.
"... In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0. ..."
"... But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role. ..."
"... While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value. ..."
"... In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968. ..."
"... Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US. ..."
"... It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm. ..."
"... "Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one. ..."
"... The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak). ..."
"... So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel. ..."
"... So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first. ..."
"... Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection. ..."
"... Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference. ..."
"... I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along." ..."
"... The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy. ..."
"... FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story. ..."
"... God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact. ..."
"... I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war. ..."
"... Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence. ..."
The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate December 23, 2017
While unproven claims of Russian meddling in U.S. politics have whipped Official Washington
into a frenzy, much less attention has been paid to real evidence of Israeli interference in
U.S. politics, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
By Dennis J Bernstein
In investigating Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. politics, special prosecutor Robert
Mueller uncovered evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured the Trump
transition team to undermine President Obama's plans to permit the United Nations to censure
Israel over its illegal settlement building on the Palestinian West Bank, a discovery
referenced in the plea deal with President Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn.
President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the United
Nations General Assembly (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took
the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal
to block the resolution).
I spoke on Dec, 18 with independent journalist and blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes
on national security and other issues for a number of blogs at Tikun Olam .
Dennis Bernstein: A part of Michael Flynn's plea had to do with some actions he took before
coming to power regarding Israel and the United Nations. Please explain.
Richard Silverstein:
The Obama administration was negotiating in the [UN] Security Council
just before he left office about a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements.
Obviously, the Israeli government did not want this resolution to be passed. Instead of going
directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to
Trump instead. They approached Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner became involved in this. While
they were in the transition and before having any official capacity, they negotiated with
various members of the Security Council to try to quash the settlement resolution.
One of the issues here which is little known is the Logan Act, which was passed at the
foundation of our republic and was designed to prevent private citizens from usurping the
foreign policy prerogatives of the executive. It criminalized any private citizen who attempted
to negotiate with an enemy country over any foreign policy issue.
In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign
policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because
that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on
the resolution and it passed 14-0.
But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the
Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to
derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and
disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role.
This speaks to the power of the Israel lobby and of Israel itself to disrupt our foreign
policy. Very few people have ever been charged with committing an illegal act by advocating on
behalf of Israel. That is one of the reasons why this is such an important development. Until
now, the lobby has really ruled supreme on the issue of Israel and Palestine in US foreign
policy. Now it is possible that a private citizen will actually be made to pay a price for
that.
This is an important development because the lobby till now has run roughshod over our
foreign policy in this area and this may act as a restraining order against blatant disruption
of US foreign policy by people like this.
Bernstein: So this information is a part of Michael Flynn's plea. Anyone studying this would
learn something about Michael Flynn and it would be part of the prosecution's
investigation.
Silverstein:
That's absolutely right. One thing to note here is that it is reporters who
have raised the issue of the Logan Act, not Mueller or Flynn's people or anyone in the Trump
administration. But I do think that Logan is a very important part of this plea deal, even if
it is not mentioned explicitly.
Bernstein: If the special prosecutor had smoking-gun information that the Trump
administration colluded with Russia, in the way they colluded with Israel before coming to
power, this would be a huge revelation. But it is definitely collusion when it comes to
Israel.
Silverstein: Absolutely. If this were Russia, it would be on the front page of every major
newspaper in the United States and the leading story on the TV news. Because this is Israel and
because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby and they have so much influence
on US policy concerning Israel, it has managed to stay on the back burner. Only two or three
media outlets besides mine have raised this issue of Logan and collusion. Kushner and Flynn may
be the first American citizens charged under the Logan Act for interfering on behalf of Israel
in our foreign policy. This is a huge issue and it has hardly been raised at all.
Bernstein: As you know, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has made a career out of investigating the
Russia-gate charges. She says that she has read all this material carefully, so she must have
read about Flynn and Israel, but I haven't heard her on this issue at all.
Silverstein:
Even progressive journalists, who you'd think would be going after this with a
vengeance, are frightened off by the fact the lobby really bites back. So, aside from outlets
like the Intercept and the Electronic Intifada, there is a lot of hesitation about going after
the Israel lobby. People are afraid because they know that there is a high price to be paid. It
goes from being purely journalism to being a personal and political vendetta when they get you
in their sights. In fact, one of the reasons I feel my blog is so important is that what I do
is challenge Israeli policy and Israeli intervention in places where it doesn't belong.
Bernstein: Jared Kushner is the point man for the Trump administration on Israel. He has
talked about having a "vision for peace." Do you think it is a problem that this is someone
with a long, close relationship with the prime minister of Israel and, in fact, runs a
foundation that invests in the building of illegal Israeli settlements? Might this be
problematic?
Silverstein:
It is quite nefarious, actually. When Jared Kushner was a teenager, Netanyahu
used to stay at the Kushner family home when he visited the United States. This relationship
with one of the most extreme right political figures in Israel goes back decades. And it is not
just Kushner himself, but all the administration personnel dealing with these so-called peace
negotiations, including Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, the ambassador. These are all
orthodox Jews who tend to have very nationalist views when it comes to Israel. They all support
settlements financially through foundations. These are not honest brokers.
We could talk at length about the history of US personnel who have been negotiators for
Middle East peace. All of them have been favorable to Israel and answerable to the Israel
lobby, including Dennis Ross and Makovsky, who served in the last administration. These people
are dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist supporters of [Israeli] settlements. They have no
business playing any role in negotiating a peace deal.
My prediction all along has been that these peace negotiations will come to naught, even
though they seem to have bought the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which is something new in the
process. The Palestinians can never accept a deal that has been negotiated by Kushner and
company because it will be far too favorable to Israel and it will totally neglect the
interests of the Palestinians.
Bernstein: It has been revealed that Kushner supports the building of settlements in the
West Bank. Most people don't understand the politics of what is going on there, but it appears
to be part of an ethnic cleansing.
Silverstein:
The settlements have always been a violation of international law, ever since
Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967. The Geneva Conventions direct an occupying power to
withdraw from territory that was not its own. In 1967 Israel invaded Arab states and conquered
the West Bank and Gaza but this has never been recognized or accepted by any nation until
now.
The fact that Kushner and his family are intimately involved in supporting
settlements–as are David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt–is completely outrageous. No
member of any previous US administration would have been allowed to participate with these
kinds of financial investments in support of settlements. Of course, Trump doesn't understand
the concept of conflict of interest because he is heavily involved in such conflicts himself.
But no party in the Middle East except Israel is going to consider the US an honest broker and
acceptable as a mediator.
When they announce this deal next January, no one in the Arab World is going to accept it,
with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia because they have other fish to fry in terms of
Iran. The next three years are going to be interesting, supposing Trump lasts out his term. My
prediction is that the peace plan will fail and that it will lead to greater violence in the
Middle East. It will not simply lead to a vacuum, it will lead to a deterioration in conditions
there.
Bernstein: The Trump transition team was actually approached directly by the Israeli
government to try to intercede at the United Nations.
Silverstein:
I'm assuming it was Netanyahu who went directly to Kushner and Trump. Now, we
haven't yet found out that Trump directly knew about this but it is very hard to believe
that Trump didn't endorse this. Now that we know that Mueller has access to all of the emails
of the transition team, there is little doubt that they have been able to find their smoking
gun. Flynn's plea meant that they basically had him dead to rights. It remains to be seen what
will happen with Kushner but I would think that this would play some role in either the
prosecution of Kushner or some plea deal.
Bernstein: The other big story, of course, is the decision by the Trump administration to
move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Was there any pre-election collusion in that
regard and what are the implications?
Silverstein:
Well, it's a terrible decision which goes against forty to fifty years of US
foreign policy. It also breaches all international understanding. All of our allies in the
European Union and elsewhere are aghast at this development. There is now a campaign in the
United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the announcement, which we will
veto, but the next step will be to go to the General Assembly, where such a resolution will
pass easily.
The question is how much anger, violence and disruption this is going to cause around the
world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. This is a slow-burning fuse. It is not going to
explode right now. The issue of Jerusalem is so vital that this is not something that is simply
going to go away. This is going to be a festering sore in the Muslim world and among
Palestinians. We have already seen attacks on Israeli soldiers and citizens and there will be
many more.
As to collusion in all of this, since Trump always said during the campaign that this was
what he was going to do, it might be difficult to treat this in the same way as the UN
resolution. The UN resolution was never on anybody's radar and nobody knew the role that Trump
was playing behind the scenes with that–as opposed to Trump saying right from the get-go
that Jerusalem was going to be recognized as the capital of Jerusalem.
By doing that, they have completely abrogated any Palestinian interest in Jerusalem. This is
a catastrophic decision that really excludes the United States from being an honest broker here
and shows our true colors in terms of how pro-Israel we are.
As most regular readers of CN already know, some dynamite books on the inordinate amount
of influence pro-Israel zealots have on Washington:
1.) 'The Host and the Parasite' by Greg Felton
2.) 'Power of Israel in the United States' by James Petras
3.) 'They Dare to Speak Out' by Paul Findley
4.) 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt
5.) 'Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power' by James Petras
I suggest that anyone relatively knew to this neglected topic peruse a few of the
aforementioned titles. An inevitable backlash by the citizens of the United States is
eventually forthcoming against the Zionist Power Configuration. It's crucial that this
impending backlash remain democratic, non-violent, eschews anti-Semitism, and travels in a
progressive in direction.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Which one would you suggest? I already read "The Israel Lobby."
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Findley and Mearsheimer are certainly worthwhile. I will look for Petras.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm
If you haven't already read them, the end/footnotes in "The Israel Lobby" are more
illuminating.
That influence is also shown, of course, by the fact that Obama waited until the midnight
hours of his tenure and after the 2016 election to even start working on this resolution.
While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated,
probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value.
In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think
he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew
calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm
Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case
against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel
collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will
awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:32 am
It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention
from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind
the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm.
The leaked emails showed the corruption
plainly, and based on the ACTUAL evidence (recorded download time), most likely came from a
highly disgruntled insider. The picture was starting to spill into public view. I'd estimate
the real huge worry was that if this stuff came out, it could bring out other Israeli
secrets, like their involvement in 9/11. That would mean actual jail time. Might be hard to
buy your way out of that no matter how much money you have.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 10:48 pm
The Logan act states that anyone who negotiates with an enemy of the US, and Israel is not
defined as an enemy.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 6:59 pm
The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would. I don't think anyone has
been convicted based on this act, and they were part of a transition team not to mention the
Logan act clearly states a private citizen who attempts to negotiate with an enemy state, and
that certainly doesn't apply to Israel. In this administration their bias is so blatant that
they can install Kushner as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine peace process while his
family has a close relationship with Netanyahu, and he runs a foundation that invests in the
building of illegal settlements which goes against the Geneva conventions. Hopefully Trump's
blatant siding with Israel will receive a lot of backlash as did his plan to make Jerusalem
the capital of Israel.
I also found that so called progressive internet sites don't cover this the way they
should.
Al Pinto , December 24, 2017 at 9:16 am
@Annie
"The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would."
You and me both .
From the point of starting to read this article, it has been in my mind that the Logan act
would not apply here. After reading most of the comments, it became clear that not many
people viewed this as such. Yes, Joe Tedesky did as well
The UN is the "clearing house" for international politics, where countries freely contact
each other's for getting support for their cause behind the scene. The support sought after
could be voting for or against the resolution on hand. At times, as Israel did, countries
reach out to perceived enemies as well, if they could not secure sufficient support for their
cause. This is the normal activity of the UN diplomacy.
Knowing that the outgoing administration would not support its cause, Israel reached out
to the incoming administration to delay the vote on the UN resolution. I fail to see anything
wrong with Israel's action even in this case; Israel is not an enemy state to the US. As
such, there has been no violation of any acts by the incoming administration, even if they
tried to secure veto vote for Israel. I do not like it, but no action by Mueller in this case
is correct.
People, just like the article in itself, implying that the Logan Act applies in this case
are just plain wrong. Not just wrong, but their anti-Israel bias is in plain view.
Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state. Even then, Russia contacting the incoming administration is not a violation of
the Logan Act. That is just normal diplomacy in the background between countries. What would
be a violation is that the contacted official acted on the behalf of Russia and tried to
influence the outgoing administration's decision. That is what the Mueller investigation
tries to prove hopelessly
"Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and
therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with
Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing
their best to provoke Russia into one.
Annie , December 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for your reply. When I read the article and it referenced the Logan Act, which I am
familiar with in that I've read about it before, I was surprised that Bernstein and
Silverstein even brought it up because it so obviously does not apply in this case, since
Israel is not considered an enemy state. Many have even referenced it as flimsy when it comes
to convictions against those in Trump's transition team who had contacts with Russia. No one
has ever been convicted under the Logan Act.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm
The Logan Act either should apply equally, or not apply at all. This "Russia-gate" hype
seems to apply it selectively.
mrtmbrnmn , December 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm
You guys are blinded by the light. The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer
hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak).
There is no doubt that Trump is Bibi's and the Saudi's ventriloquist dummy and Jared has
been an Israel agent of influence since he was 12.
But half the Dementedcrat Sore Loser Brigade will withdraw from the field of battle (not
to mention most of the GOP living dead too) if publically and noisily tying Israel to Trump's
tail becomes the only route to his removal. Which it would have to be, as there is no there
there regarding the yearlong trumped-up PutinPutinPutin waterboarding of Trump.
Immediately (if not sooner) the mighty (pro-Israel) Donor Bank of Singer (Paul), Saban
(Haim), Sachs (Goldman) & Adelson (Sheldon), would change their passwords and leave these
politicians/beggars with empty begging bowls. End of $ordid $tory.
alley cat , December 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm
So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What
of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are
orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator
bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel.
Mueller can use that evidence of sabotage and/or obstruction of justice to try to coerce
false confessions from Kushner and Flynn. But what are the chances of that, barring short
stayovers for them at some CIA black site?
So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem
witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and
Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's
flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first.
Leslie F. , December 23, 2017 at 8:28 pm
He used it, along with other info, to turn flip Flynn and possibly can use it the same way
again Kusher. Not all evidence has end up in court to be useful.
JWalters , December 23, 2017 at 8:40 pm
This is an extremely important story, excellently reported. All the main "facts" Americans
think they know about Israel are, amazingly, flat-out lies.
1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a
defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor
shape and would not be able to resist the zionist army.
2. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.
3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are
under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.
4. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of
equal human rights for all.
Maintaining such a blanket of major lies for decades requires immense power. And this
power would have to be exercised "under the radar" to be effective. That requires even more
power. Both Congress and the press have to be controlled. How much power does it take to turn
"Progressive Rachel" into "Tel Aviv Rachel"? To turn "It Takes a Village" Hillary into
"Slaughter a Village" Hillary? It takes immense power AND ruthlessness.
War profiteers have exactly this combination of immense war profits and the ruthlessness
to victimize millions of people. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Vast war profits easily afford to buy the mainstream media. And controlling campaign
contributions for members of Congress is amazingly cheap in the big picture. Such a squalid
sale of souls.
And when simple bribery is not enough, they ruin a person's life through blackmail or
false character assassination. And if those don't work they use death threats, including to
family members, and finally murder. Their ruthlessness is unrestrained. John Perkins has
described these tactics in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".
For readers who haven't seen it, here is an excellent riff on the absurdly overwhelming
evidence for Israel's influence compared to that of Russia, at a highly professional news and
analysis website run by Jewish anti-Zionists. "Let's talk about Russian influence" http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Hitler and Mussolini, Trump and Netanyahoo – matches made in Hell. These characters
are so obviously, blatantly evil that it is deeply disturbing that people fail to see that,
and instead go to great lengths to find some complicated flaws in these monsters.
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Keep it simple folks. No need for complex analyses. Just remember that these characters as
simply as evil as it gets, and proceed from there. These asinine shows that portray mobsters
as complex human beings are dangerously deluding. If you want to be victimized by these
types, this kind of overthinking is just the way to go.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 9:00 pm
There is a modern theory of fiction that insists upon the portrayal of inconsistency in
characters, both among the good guys and the bad guys. It is useful to show how those who do
wrongs have made specific kinds of errors that make them abnormal, and that those who do
right are not perfect but nonetheless did the right thing. Instead it is used by commercial
writers to argue that the good are really bad, and the bad are really good, which is of
course the philosophy of oligarchy-controlled mass publishers.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:54 pm
A very important article by Dennis Bernstein, and it is very appropriate that non-zionist
Jews are active against the extreme zionist corruption of our federal government. I am sure
that they are reviled by the zionists for interfering with the false denunciations of racism
against the opponents of zionism. Indeed critics face a very nearly totalitarian power of
zionism, which in league with MIC/WallSt opportunism has displaced democracy altogether in
the US.
backwardsevolution , December 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm
A nice little set-up by the Obama administration. Perhaps it was entrapment? Who set it
up? Flynn and Kushner should have known better to fall for it. So at the end of his
Presidency, Obama suddenly gets balls and wants to slap down Israel? Yeah, right.
Nice to have leverage over people, though, isn't it? If you're lucky and play your cards
right, you might even be lucky enough to land an impeachment.
Of course, I'm just being cynical. No one would want to overturn democracy, would
they?
Certainly people like Comey, Brenner, Clinton, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein wouldn't want
that, would they?
Joe Tedesky , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm
I just can't see any special prosecutor investigating Israel-Gate. Between what the
Zionist donors donate to these creepy politicians, too what goods they have on these same
mischievous politicians, I just can't see any investigation into Israel's collusion with the
Trump Administration going anywhere. Netanyahu isn't Putin, and Russia isn't Israel. Plus,
Israel is considered a U.S. ally, while Russia is being marked as a Washington rival. Sorry,
this news regarding Israel isn't going to be ranted on about for the next 18 months, like the
MSM has done with Russia, because our dear old Israel is the only democracy in the Middle
East, or so they tell us. So, don't get your hopes up.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:33 am
It's true the Israelis have America's politicians by the ears and the balls. But as this
story gets better known, politicians will start getting questions at their town meetings.
Increasingly the politicians will gag on what Israel is force-feeding them, until finally
they reach a critical mass of vomit in Congress.
Joe Tedesky , December 24, 2017 at 11:12 am
I hope you are right JWalters. Although relying on a Zionist controlled MSM doesn't give
hope for the news getting out properly. Again I hope you are right JWalters. Joe
Actually, Netanyahu was so desperate to have the resolution pulled and not voted on that
he reached out to any country that might help him after the foreign minister of New Zealand,
one of its co-sponsors refused to pull the plug after a testy phone exchange with the Israeli
PM ending up threatening an Israeli boycott oturnef the KIwis.
He then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin, who owed him a favor for having Israel's UN
delegate absent himself for the UNGA vote on sanctioning Russia after its annexation of
Crimea.
Putin then called Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, since deceased, and asked him to
get the other UNSC ambassadors to postpone the vote until Trump took over the White House but
the other ambassadors weren't buying it. Given Russia's historic public position regarding
the settlements, Churkin had no choice to vote Yes with the others.
This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US which,
due to Zionist influence on the media, does not want the American public to know about the
close ties between Putin and Netanyahu which has led to the Israeli PM making five state
visits there in the last year and a half.
Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto. That
Netanyahu apparently knew in advance that the US planned to veto the resolution was, I
suspect, leaked to the Israelis by US delegate Samantha Power, who was clearly unhappy at
having to abstain.
Abe , December 24, 2017 at 12:39 am
The Israeli Prime Minister made five state visits to Russia in the last year and a half to
make sure the Russians don't accidentally on purpose blast Israeli warplanes from the sky
over Syria (like they oughtta). Putin tries not to snicker when Netanyahu bloviates ad
nauseum about the purported "threat" posed by Iran.
He thinks Putin is a RATS ASS like the yankee government
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:34 am
"This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the
US"
We've just had a whole cluster of big stories involving Israel that have all been
essentially blacked out in the US press. e.g. "Dionne and Shields ignore the Adelson in the room" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-israels-capital
This is not due to chance. There is no doubt that the US mainstream media is wholly
controlled by the Israelis.
alley cat , December 24, 2017 at 4:49 am
"He [Netanyahu] then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin "
Jeff, that characterization of Putin and Netanyahu's relationship makes no sense, since
the Russians have consistently opposed Zionism and Putin has been no exception, having
spoiled Zionist plans for the destruction of Syria.
"Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US
veto."
Not sure where you're going with that, since the US vote was up to Obama, who wanted to
get some payback for all of Bibi's efforts to sabotage Obama's treaty with Iran.
For the record, Zionism has had no more rabid supporter than the Dragon Lady. If we're
going to make assumptions, we could start by assuming that if she had won the White House
we'd all be dead by now, thanks to her obsession (at the instigation of her Zionist/neocon
sponsors) with declaring no-fly zones in Syria.
Brendan , December 24, 2017 at 6:18 am
Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves
their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will
simply ignore the Israeli connection.
Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as
evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone
call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of
this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference.
Skip Scott , December 24, 2017 at 7:59 am
I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would
never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
The zionist will stop at nothing to control the middle east with American taxpayers
money/military equiptment its a win win for the zionist they control America lock stock and
barrel a pity though it is a great country to be led by a jewish entity.
What will Israel-Palestine look like twenty years from now? Will it remain an apartheid
regime, a regime without any Palestinians, or something different. The Trump decision, which
the world rejects, brings the issue of "final" settlement to the fore. In a way we can go
back to the thirties and the British Mandate. Jewish were fleeing Europe, many coming to
Palestine. The British, on behalf of the Zionists, were delaying declaring Palestine a state
with control of its own affairs. Seeing the mass immigration and chafing at British foot
dragging, the Arabs rebelled, What happened then was that the British, responding to numerous
pressures notably war with Germany, acted by granting independence and granting Palestine
control of its borders.
With American pressure and the mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Jews defied the British
resulting in Jewish resistance. What followed then was a UN plan to divide the land with a
Jerusalem an international city administered by the UN. The Arabs rebelled and lost much of
what the UN plan provided and Jerusalem as an international city was scrapped.
Will there be a second serious attempt to settle the issue of the land and the status of
Jerusalem? Will there be a serious move toward a single state? How will the matter of
Jerusalem be resolved. The two state solution has always been a fantasy and acquiescence of
Palestinians to engage in this charade exposes their leaders to charges of posturing for
perks. Imagined options could go on and on but will there be serious options placed before
the world community or will the boots on the ground Israeli policies continue?
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with
the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to
both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Truly mind-boggling. Ahistorical, and as you say, fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:48 pm
FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy
(against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End
of story.
$50K of Facebook ads about puppies pales in comparison to that blatant, prima facia,
public manipulation. God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Just for the record, Richard Silverstein blocked me on Twitter because I pointed out that
he slammed someone who was suggesting that the Assad government was fighting for its
(Syria's) life by fighting terrorists. Actually, more specifically, because of that he read
my "Free Palestine" bio on Twitter and called me a Hamas supporter (no Hamas mentioned) and a
"moron" for some seeming contradiction.
I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy.
If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria
and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving
their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing
brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote,
arguably, perpetual war.
Silverstein is probably not a good (ie. consistent) arbiter of Israeli impact on US
politics. Just sayin'.
This may be a tad ot but it relates to the alleged hacking of the DNC, the role debbie
wasserman schultz plays in the spy ring (awan bros) in house of rep servers: I have long
suspected that mossad has their fingers in this entire mess. FWIW
Good site, BTW.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm
I can't recall why I removed the Tikun Olam site from my bookmarks – it happened
quite a while back. Generally I do that when I feel the blogger crossed some kind of personal
red line. Something Mr. Silverstein wrote put him over that line with me.
In the course of a search I found that at the neocon NYT. Mr. Silverstein claims several
things I find unbelievable, and from that alone I wonder about his ultimate motives. I may be
excessively touchy about this, but that's how it is.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Yeah Zachary, "wondering about ultimate motives" is probably a good way to put it/his
views. He's obviously conflicted, if not deferential in some aspects of Israeli policy. He
really was a hero of mine, but now I just don't get whether what he says is masking something
or a true belief. He says some good stuff, but, but, but .
P. Michael Garber , December 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm
Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than
reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel
lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible
relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was
manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's
influence.
Nice example of how US MSM advertized Steele dossier. No question was asked how Steele how
was expelled from Russia more then 20 years ago and as such is "person non grata" point of contact in
Russia managed to obtain such an information. It was clear that he can't pay for it. He got less
then $200K for the dossier. All you can buy for those money is gossip. But no such questions were
asked in this articles.
Looks like Steele was just a pawn in a much bigger game...
Notable quotes:
"... "Someone like me stays in the shadows," Steele would say, as if apologizing for what he did next. It was an action that went against all his training, all his professional instincts. Spies, after all, keep secrets; they don't disclose them. And now that the F.B.I. had apparently let him down, there was another restraint tugging on his resolve: he didn't know whom he could trust. It was as if he were back operating in the long shadow of the Kremlin, living by what the professionals call "Moscow Rules," where security and vigilance are constant occupational obsessions. But when he considered what was at stake, he knew he had no choice. With Simpson now on board, in effect, as co-conspirator and a shrewd facilitator, Steele met with a reporter. ..."
There's a row of Victorian terraced houses on a side street in London's Belgravia district,
each projecting a dowdy respectability with its stone front steps leading to a pair of
alabaster pillars and then a glossy black door. And at 9–11 Grosvenor Gardens there is a
small, rectangular brass plate adjacent to the formidable door. Its dark letters discreetly
announce: ORBIS BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE, LTD.
By design, the company's title was not very forthcoming. Orbis, of course, is Latin for
"circle" and, by common parlance, "the world." But "intelligence" -- that was more problematic.
Just what sort of international business information was the company dealing in? Advertising?
Accounting? Management consulting?
For a select well-heeled set scattered across the globe, no further explanation was
necessary. Orbis was a player in a burgeoning industry that linked refugees from the worlds of
espionage and journalism to the decision-makers who ran the flat-earth multi-national
corporations and who also, from time to convenient time, dabbled in politics. In their previous
lives, the founding partners of Orbis, trained and nurtured by the Secret Intelligence Service,
had been in the shadowy business of finding out secrets in the name of national interest. Now
they performed more or less the same mission, only they had transferred their allegiance to the
self-interests of the well-paying customers who hired them.
And so, on a warm day last June, Christopher Steele, ex-Cambridge Union president, ex-M.I.6
Moscow field agent, ex-head of M.I.6's Russia desk, ex-adviser to British Special Forces on
capture-or-kill ops in Afghanistan, and a 52-year-old father with four children, a new wife,
three cats, and a sprawling brick-and-wood suburban palace in Surrey, received in his
second-floor office at Orbis a transatlantic call from an old client.
Video: Donald Trump's Conflicts of Interest
"It started off as a fairly general inquiry," Steele would recall in an anonymous interview
with Mother Jones, his identity at the time still a carefully guarded secret. But over the next
seven incredible months, as the retired spy hunted about in an old adversary's territory, he
found himself following a trail marked by, as he then put it, "hair-raising" concerns. The
allegations of financial, cyber, and sexual shenanigans would lead to a chilling destination:
the Kremlin had not only, he'd boldly assert in his report, "been cultivating, supporting, and
assisting" Donald Trump for years but also had compromised the tycoon "sufficiently to be able
to blackmail him."
And in the aftermath of the publication of these explosive findings -- as nothing less than
the legitimacy of the 2016 U.S. presidential election was impugned; as congressional hearings
and F.B.I. investigations were announced; as a bombastic president-elect continued to let loose
with indignant tirades about "fake news"; as internal-security agents of the F.S.B., the main
Russian espionage agency, were said to have burst into a meeting of intelligence officers,
placed a bag over the head of the deputy director of its cyber-activities, and marched him off;
as the body of a politically well-connected former F.S.B. general was reportedly found in his
black Lexus -- Christopher Steele had gone to ground.
A CALL TO LONDON
But in the beginning was the telephone call.
In many defining ways, it was as if Glenn Simpson, a former investigative reporter, and
Christopher Steele, a former intelligence operative, had been born under the same star. Simpson
-- like the onetime spy, according to those who know him -- was the embodiment of the traits
that defined his longtime occupation: tenacity, meticulousness, cynicism, an obsession with
operational secrecy. Also like Steele, who had filed for retirement from the Secret
Intelligence Service in 2009, when he realized an old Russian hand would not get a seat at the
high table in the Age of Terror, Simpson, approaching middle age and in mid-career, had walked
away from journalism at about the same time after nearly 14 years doing political and financial
investigations at The Wall Street Journal. And both men, suddenly footloose but guided by their
training, talents, and character, had gravitated to similar businesses for the second acts of
their careers.
In 2011, Glenn Simpson, along with two other former Journal reporters, launched Fusion GPS,
in Washington, D.C. The firm's activities, according to the terse, purposefully oblique
statement on its Web site, centered on "premium research, strategic intelligence, and due
diligence."
In September 2015, as the Republican primary campaign was heating up, he was hired to
compile an opposition-research dossier on Donald Trump. Who wrote the check? Simpson, always
secretive, won't reveal his client's identity. However, according to a friend who had spoken
with Simpson at the time, the funding came from a "Never Trump" Republican and not directly
from the campaign war chests of any of Trump's primary opponents.
But by mid-June 2016, despite all the revelations Simpson was digging up about the
billionaire's roller-coaster career, two previously unimaginable events suddenly affected both
the urgency and the focus of his research. First, Trump had apparently locked up the
nomination, and his client, more pragmatic than combative, was done throwing good money after
bad. And second, there was a new cycle of disturbing news stories wafting around Trump as the
wordy headline splashed across the front page of The Washington Post on June 17 heralded,
INSIDE TRUMP'S FINANCIAL TIES TO RUSSIA AND HIS UNUSUAL FLATTERY OF VLADIMIR PUTIN.
Simpson, as fellow journalists remembered, smelled fresh red meat. And anyway, after all he
had discovered, he'd grown deeply concerned by the prospect of a Trump presidency. So he found
Democratic donors whose checks would keep his oppo research going strong. And he made a call to
London, to a partner at Orbis he had worked with in the past, an ex-spy who knew where all the
bodies were buried in Russia, and who, as the wags liked to joke, had even buried some of
them.
Oleg Erovinkin (inset), a former F.S.B. general and ally of Putin confidant Igor Sechin
(below, right), was a suspected source of Steele's; Erovinkin was found dead in his car in
December.
PERSONS OF INTEREST Oleg Erovinkin (inset), a former F.S.B. general and ally of Putin
confidant Igor Sechin (below, right), was a suspected source of Steele's; Erovinkin was found
dead in his car in December.
'Are there business ties in Russia?" That, Steele would offer to Mother Jones, was the bland
initial thrust of his investigation after he was subcontracted by Fusion for a fee estimated by
a source in the trade to be within the profession's going rate: $12,000 to $15,000 a month,
plus expenses.
Steele had known Russia as a young spy, arriving in Moscow as a 26-year-old with his new
wife and thin diplomatic cover in 1990. For nearly three years as a secret agent in enemy
territory, he lived through the waning days of perestroika and witnessed the tumultuous
disintegration of the Soviet Union under Boris Yeltsin's mercurial and often boozy leadership.
The K.G.B. was onto him almost from the start: he inhabited the spy's uncertain life, where at
any moment the lurking menace could turn into genuine danger. Yet even at the tail end of his
peripatetic career at the service, Russia, the battleground of his youth, was still in his
blood and on his operational mind: from 2004 to 2009 he headed M.I.6's Russia Station, the
London deskman directing Her Majesty's covert penetration of Putin's resurgent motherland.
And so, as Steele threw himself into his new mission, he could count on an army of sources
whose loyalty and information he had bought and paid for over the years. There was no safe way
he could return to Russia to do the actual digging; the vengeful F.S.B. would be watching him
closely. But no doubt he had a working relationship with knowledgeable contacts in London and
elsewhere in the West, from angry émigrés to wheeling-and-dealing oligarchs
always eager to curry favor with a man with ties to the Secret Service, to political dissidents
with well-honed axes to grind. And, perhaps most promising of all, he had access to the
networks of well-placed Joes -- to use the jargon of his former profession -- he'd directed
from his desk at London Station, assets who had their eyes and ears on the ground in
Russia.
How good were these sources? Consider what Steele would write in the memos he filed with
Simpson: Source A -- to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier -- was "a senior Russian
Foreign Ministry figure." Source B was "a former top level intelligence officer still active in
the Kremlin." And both of these insiders, after "speaking to a trusted compatriot," would claim
that the Kremlin had spent years getting its hooks into Donald Trump.
Source E was "an ethnic Russian" and "close associate of Republican US presidential
candidate Donald Trump."
This individual proved to be a treasure trove of information. "Speaking in confidence to a
compatriot," the talkative Source E "admitted there was a well-developed conspiracy of
cooperation between them [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership." Then this: "The
Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from
the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to the WikiLeaks platform." And finally: "In return the
Trump team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to
raise US/NATO defense commitments in the Baltic and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away
from Ukraine."
Then there was Source D, "a close associate of Trump who had organized and managed his
recent trips to Moscow," and Source F, "a female staffer" at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton hotel, who
was co-opted into the network by an Orbis "ethnic Russian operative" working hand in hand with
the loquacious Trump insider, Source E.
These two sources told quite a lurid story, the now infamous "golden showers" allegation,
which, according to the dossier, was corroborated by others in his alphabet list of assets. It
was an evening's entertainment, Steele, the old Russian hand, must have suspected, that had to
have been produced by the ever helpful F.S.B. And since it was typical of Moscow Center's
handwriting to have the suite wired up for sound and video (the hotel's Web site, with
unintentional irony, boasts of its "cutting edge technological amenities"), Steele apparently
began to suspect that locked in a Kremlin safe was a hell of a video, as well as
photographs.
Steele's growing file must have left his mind cluttered with new doubts, new suspicions. And
now, as he continued his chase, a sense of alarm hovered about the former spy. If Steele's
sources were right, Putin had up his sleeve kompromat -- Moscow Center's gleeful word for
compromising material -- that would make the Access Hollywood exchange between Trump and Billy
Bush seem, as Trump insisted, as banal as "locker-room talk." Steele could only imagine how and
when the Russians might try to use it.
THE GREATER GOOD
What should he do? Steele dutifully filed his first incendiary report with Fusion on June 20,
but was this the end of his responsibilities? He knew that what he had unearthed, he'd say in
his anonymous conversation with Mother Jones, "was something of huge significance, way above
party politics." Yet was it simply a vanity to think that a retired spy had to take it on his
shoulders to save the world? And what about his contractual agreement with Simpson? Could the
company sue, he no doubt wondered, if he disseminated information he'd collected on its
dime?
In the end, Steele found the rationale that is every whistle-blower's sustaining philosophy:
the greater good trumps all other concerns. And so, even while he kept working his sources in
the field and continued to shoot new memos to Simpson, he settled on a plan of covert
action.
THE MEMOS BY THE FORMER SPY "BECAME ONE OF WASHINGTON'S WORST-KEPT SECRETS."
The F.B.I.'s Eurasian Joint Organized Crime Squad -- "Move Over, Mafia," the bureau's P.R.
machine crowed after the unit had been created -- was a particularly gung-ho team with whom
Steele had done some heady things in the past. And in the course of their successful
collaboration, the hard-driving F.B.I. agents and the former frontline spy evolved into a
chummy mutual-admiration society.
It was only natural, then, that when he began mulling whom to turn to, Steele thought about
his tough-minded friends on the Eurasian squad. And fortuitously, he discovered, as his scheme
took on a solid operational commitment, that one of the agents was now assigned to the bureau
office in Rome. By early August, a copy of his first two memos were shared with the F.B.I.'s
man in Rome.
"Shock and horror" -- that, Steele would say in his anonymous interview, was the bureau's
reaction to the goodies he left on its doorstep. And it wanted copies of all his subsequent
reports, the sooner the better.
His duty done, Steele waited with anxious anticipation for the official consequences.
FROM THE SHADOWS
There were none. Or at least not any public signs that the F.B.I. was tracking down the ripe
leads he'd offered. And in the weeks that followed, as summer turned into fall and the election
drew closer, Steele's own sense of the mounting necessity of his mission must have
intensified.
As his frustration grew, the mysterious trickle from WikiLeaks of the Democratic National
Committee's and John Podesta's purloined e-mails were continuing in a deliberate, steadily
ominous flow. He had little doubt the Kremlin was behind the hacking, and he had shared his
evidence with the F.B.I., but as best he could tell, the bureau was focusing on solving the
legalistic national-security puzzle surrounding Hillary Clinton's e-mails. With so much hanging
in the balance -- the potential president of the United States possibly being under Russia's
thumb -- why weren't the authorities more concerned? He decided it was time for desperate
measures.
"Someone like me stays in the shadows," Steele would say, as if apologizing for what he
did next. It was an action that went against all his training, all his professional instincts.
Spies, after all, keep secrets; they don't disclose them. And now that the F.B.I. had
apparently let him down, there was another restraint tugging on his resolve: he didn't know
whom he could trust. It was as if he were back operating in the long shadow of the Kremlin,
living by what the professionals call "Moscow Rules," where security and vigilance are constant
occupational obsessions. But when he considered what was at stake, he knew he had no choice.
With Simpson now on board, in effect, as co-conspirator and a shrewd facilitator, Steele met
with a reporter.
In early October, on a trip to New York, Steele sat down with David Corn, the 58-year-old
Washington-bureau chief of Mother Jones. It was a prudent choice. Corn, who had measured out a
career breaking big stories and who had won a George Polk Award in the process, could be
imperious, a ruthless man in a ruthless profession, but he was also a man of his word. If he
agreed to protect a source, his commitment was unshakable. Steele's identity would be safe with
him.
Related Video: Vladimir Putin's Impact on the 2016 Election
Corn accepted the terms, listened, and then went to work. He began to investigate, trying to
get a handle on Steele's credibility from people in the intelligence community. And all the
while the clock was ticking: the election was just a month away. On October 31, in what one of
Corn's colleagues would describe as "a Hail Mary pass," he broke a judicious, expurgated
version of the story -- "A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian
Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump."
But in the tidal wave of headlines and breaking news in the weeks before the election, the
story got swamped. It was, after all, the silly season. First, the F.B.I. exonerated Hillary
Clinton over possible charges involving an insecure e-mail server. Then, 11 days before the
election, F.B.I. director James Comey said, in effect, not so fast. Perhaps, he announced
gravely, there was a smoking gun on the computer belonging to, of all improbable individuals,
disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner. The press swarmed to the story. And attention was
busily paid to the final jabs the two candidates were taking at each other. There were simply
too many unsubstantiated claims in Corn's story for other journalists to check out, and the
fact that the primary source was an unnamed former spook, well, that didn't make the
reportorial challenges less daunting.
In early November, Corn shared a bit of what he knew with Julian Borger, of The Guardian.
And Simpson, during a sandwich lunch with Paul Wood in the BBC's Washington radio studio,
reached into his briefcase and handed over to the British journalist a redacted version of
Steele's initial report. It wasn't long before, as The New York Times would write, the memos by
the former spy "became one of Washington's worst-kept secrets, as reporters . . . scrambled to
confirm or disprove them."
Then, on November 8, Donald Trump was elected president of the United States.
Within hours of the president-elect's victory speech, Vladimir Putin went on Russian state
television to offer his congratulations. And the Popular Front, a political movement founded by
the Russian president, slyly tweeted, "They say that Putin once again beat all."
MOSCOW RULES
On a bright autumn weekend in late November in Nova Scotia, about 300 deep thinkers -- a
collection of academics, government officials, corporate executives, and journalists from 70
countries -- settled in for a couple of ruminative days at the annual Halifax International
Security Forum. There were cocktail parties, elaborate dinners, a five-K run, a seemingly
endless schedule of weighty discussion groups, and nearly constant feverish chatter about the
new, improbable American president-elect.
It was at some point in this busy weekend that Senator John McCain and David J. Kramer, a
former State Department official whose bailiwick was Russia and who now toils at Arizona State
University's Washington-based McCain Institute for International Leadership, found themselves
huddling with Sir Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Russia.
Sir Andrew, 77, had served in Moscow for five years starting in 1995, a no-holds-barred time
when Putin was aggressively consolidating power. And in London Station, the M.I.6 puppeteer
pulling all the clandestine strings was Christopher Steele. Sir Andrew knew Steele well and
liked what he knew. And the former diplomat, who always had a few tough words to say about
Putin, had heard the rumors about Steele's memo.
Had Sir Andrew arrived in Halifax on his own covert mission? Was it just an accident that
his conversation with Senator McCain happened to meander its way to the findings in Steele's
memos? Or are there no accidents in international intrigue? Sir Andrew offered no comment to
Vanity Fair. He did, however, tell the Independent newspaper, "The issue of Donald Trump and
Russia was very much in the news and it was natural to talk about it." And he added, "We spoke
about how Mr. Trump may find himself in a position where there could be an attempt to blackmail
him with kompromat." Any further answers remain buried in the secret history of this affair.
Neither McCain nor Kramer would comment on the specifics of the meeting; all that can be firmly
established is that McCain and Kramer listened with a growing attentiveness to Sir Andrew's
summary of what was purportedly in these reports -- and the two men came to realize they had to
see them with their own eyes. Kramer, the good soldier, volunteered to retrieve them.
On an evening about a week later, using a ticket purchased with miles from his own account,
Kramer flew out of Washington and landed early the next morning at Heathrow. Once on the
ground, as per stern instructions, he operated on Moscow Rules. Told to meet a man loitering
outside baggage claim holding a copy of the Financial Times, Kramer engaged in an exchange of
word code. At last satisfied, Christopher Steele whisked him off in a Land Rover to the
security of his house in Surrey.
They talked for hours. And Steele passed him his report. Was this the identical, somewhat
sputtering 35-page memo that had already been making the rounds among reporters? Or, as some
intelligence analysts believe, was it a longer, more expertly crafted and sourced document, the
final work product of a well-trained M.I.6 senior deskman? Neither McCain nor Kramer would
comment, but what is known is that Kramer flew back to Washington that same night, guarding his
hard-won prize with his life.
On December 9, McCain sat in the office of F.B.I. director James Comey and, with no other
aides present, handed him the typed pages that could bring about the downfall of a president.
Afterward, the senator would issue a statement that amounted to little more than a hapless
shrug, and a disingenuous one to boot: he had been "unable to make a judgment about their
accuracy" and so he'd simply passed them on.
But there were consequences. In the waning days of the Obama administration, both the
president and congressional leaders were briefed on the contents of the Steele memos. And in
early January, at the end of an intelligence briefing at Trump Tower on Russia's interference
in the presidential election conducted by the nation's top four intelligence officials, the
president-elect was presented with a two-page summary of Steele's allegations.
And with that mind-boggling moment as a news peg, the dominoes began to fall with resounding
thuds. First, BuzzFeed, full of journalistic justifications, posted the entire 35-page report
online. Then The Wall Street Journal outed Christopher Steele as the former British
intelligence officer who had authored the Trump dossier. And next Steele, who in his previous
life had directed the service's inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, the former
F.S.B. officer who was fatally poisoned by a dose of radioactive polonium-210, quickly gathered
up his family, asked a neighbor to look after his three cats, and headed off as fast as he
could to parts unknown -- only to return nearly two months later to his office, refusing to say
little more than that he was "pleased to be back." His arrival was, in its guarded way, as
mysterious as his disappearance.
WORLD OF DOUBTS
'Walking back the cat" is how those in the trade refer to the process of trying to resolve the
bottom-line question in any piece of intelligence: Is it true?
And against the unsettling background of the early months of the Trump administration, the
nation's intelligence analysts -- as well as eager journalists and just plain concerned
citizens -- have been grappling with whether or not the allegations in Steele's report are
accurate.
There are certainly items in the dossier that would leave any burrower shaking his head. The
allegation that Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, had traveled to Prague last August for a
clandestine meet with Kremlin officials appears false, as Cohen insists he has never been to
Prague. And the repeated misspelling of the name of Alfa Bank -- the largest privately owned
commercial bank in Russia -- as "Alpha Bank" does little to reinforce the report's
unsubstantiated charges of the bank's illicit cash payoffs.
But some things do tally. CNN has reported that U.S. intelligence intercepts of
conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian nationals occurred on the same
day and from the same locations cited in the memos. And the Trump campaign engineered, as one
early memo warned, a Republican platform that steadfastly refused to give lethal defensive
weapons to troops in Ukraine fighting the Russian-led intervention.
A grim case can also be made that the Russians are taking the memos seriously. Oleg
Erovinkin -- a former F.S.B. general and a key aide to Igor Sechin, a former deputy prime
minister who now heads Rosneft, the giant Russian oil company, and whose name is scattered with
incriminating innuendo through several memos -- was found dead in his car the day after
Christmas. The F.S.B., according to Russian press reports, "launched a large-scale
investigation," but no official cause of death has been announced. Was this the price Erovinkin
paid for having apparent similarities to Steele's Source B, "a former top level intelligence
officer still active in the Kremlin"? And, no less ominous, after both Steele and U.S.
intelligence officials made their cases for the Kremlin's involvement in the election hackings,
the F.S.B. arrested two officers in the agency's cyber-wing and one computer security expert,
charging them with treason. Were these three the sources that Steele relied on?
Further supporting evidence of Steele's claims can perhaps also be found in the press
reports of ongoing federal investigations. Three members of the Trump election team were
mentioned in the dossier for their alleged ties to Russian officials -- Paul Manafort, the
former campaign chairman; Carter Page, an early foreign-policy adviser; and Roger Stone, a
longtime ad hoc adviser. All are under investigation, but no charges have been filed, and all
three men have vehemently denied any wrongdoing. And according to The Washington Post, the
F.B.I. in the weeks before the election grew so interested in the contents of the dossier that
the bureau entered into a series of conversations with Steele to discuss hiring him to continue
his research. Once the report became public, however, the discussions ended, and Steele was
never compensated.
But ultimately, in any examination of the veracity of an intelligence report, professionals
weigh the messenger as heavily as the news. Steele's credentials were the real thing and,
apparently, impressive enough to scare the hell out of James Clapper, the director of national
intelligence, James Comey, John Brennan, the C.I.A. director, and Admiral Mike Rogers, the
N.S.A. director. How else can one explain their collective decision to pass on the
still-unverified dossier to the president and the president-elect?
Finally, but not least, there is Steele's own tacit but still eloquent testimony. Retired
spies don't go to ground, taking their families with them, unless they have a damned good
reason.
IN FROM THE COLD
Time to think is dangerous. And with the new president now ensconced in the White House, a man
whose actions and reputation remain tangled up in a morass of disturbing speculations, the
nation has, in effect, gone to ground, too. The concerns and questions escalate day after
troubling day. With an intelligence community fighting its own secret war against a president
who has time after time vilified it, the answers may soon be revealed. But for now all the
nation can do is wait with tense anticipation for the congressional and intelligence-agency
investigations to play out, for the high-stakes chase started by a lone ex-spy to move forward
toward its conclusion and into history, for the clarity that will tell the American people it's
finally safe to come in from the cold.
indiescene, 1/2/2017 5:53 PM EST
Politicians encourage broad surveillance instead of investing in intelligence and analysis. Investing in staff and
cutting-edge analysis would be infinitely smarter than collecting ever more data.
indiescene, 1/2/2017 5:11 PM EST
Why does the President ignore calls to pardon Clinton / Snowden?
adelphean70, 12/30/2016 5:39 PM EST
Did the Russians actually tweet a picture of a duck with the word LAME in front of it?
What a bunch of outrageous speculations. And not a single attempt to question the motives
behind the dossier (money paid)
Steele was kicked out of Russia more then 20 years ago. He does not know the language. All he
can be is a patsy for some more powerful and sinister forces. What contact he could have in
Russia? He is exposed MI6 agent and as such a "person non grata" in Russia and any contacts with
him are toxic. Even "liberasts" (Russian neoliberals; the most pro-Western part of Russian society) would think twice before communicating with
him.
Notable quotes:
"... "I know him as a very competent, professional operator who left the secret service and is now operating his own private company," Andrew Wood, Britain's ambassador to Russia from 1995 to 2000, told the BBC on Friday. "I do not think he would make things up. I don't think he would, necessarily, always draw correct judgment, but that's not the same thing." ..."
"... Although Steele wasn't a senior figure in MI6, one of the officials said because of Steele's experience on the Russia desk and the high-level contacts he had during his time in Moscow, ..."
"... The material, they said, was more likely to have come from conversations with third parties. ..."
"... Wood said it seems unlikely that Russian operatives intentionally lied to Steele. He added that it is not surprising that he has gone into hiding. ..."
"... James Hudson, Britain's former deputy counsel in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg, resigned in 2009 after a film emerged showing him with two women thought to be prostitutes. More recently, Britain was involved in a diplomatic flap after a former official under then-Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted that British authorities had rigged up a fake rock in Moscow to spy on Russians. ..."
LONDON -- Christopher Steele, the one-time British spy who has compiled an explosive dossier
on President-elect Donald Trump, is a well-regarded operative who wouldn't make up stories to
satisfy his clients, according to diplomatic and intelligence experts who know him.
Steele, 52, worked for MI6, Britain's overseas intelligence agency, and served in Moscow in
the early 1990s. After leaving the agency, he and a partner started Orbis Business Intelligence
Ltd. in 2009. The firm provides strategic advice, gathers intelligence and conducts
cross-border investigations, according to its website.
Steele produced the memo containing unsubstantiated claims that Russia had compromising
personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, CBS News' Major Garrett reported. Orbis was
originally hired by Fusion GPS, a Washington-based research firm working for an unknown
client.
"I know him as a very competent, professional operator who left the secret service and
is now operating his own private company," Andrew Wood, Britain's ambassador to Russia from
1995 to 2000, told the BBC on Friday. "I do not think he would make things up. I don't think
he would, necessarily, always draw correct judgment, but that's not the same thing."
... ... ...
Wood said U.S. Sen. John McCain asked him about the document during a security conference in
November because of Wood's relationship with Steele. After their conversation, McCain made
arrangements to get a copy of the report, Wood told the BBC.
Wood is now an associate fellow at the think tank Chatham House and is a consultant for
companies with interests in Russia.
Three British intelligence officers interviewed by The Associated Press described Steele as
well regarded in the intelligence community, with excellent Russian skills and high-level
sources.
Although Steele wasn't a senior figure in MI6, one of the officials said because of
Steele's experience on the Russia desk and the high-level contacts he had during his time in
Moscow, he was brought in to help with the case of Alexander Litvinenko, the former
Russian secret service officer and Kremlin critic who was poisoned in 2006 in London by
polonium-210, a radioactive substance. The official, who worked primarily on Eastern Europe,
said he had no other details of Steele's involvement in the case.
James Nixey, the head of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program, told the AP that parts
of the document created by Steele "read exactly as reports from the secret services." "Some of
the practices which we know and which are confirmed to have happened during Soviet and
post-Soviet times are reported in this dossier," Nixey said, adding that Russia's denials were
also part of a Cold War pattern in which the Kremlin "would outright deny something which is
quite plainly true." All three of the former intelligence officials, however, cast doubt on
whether the material in the report and its level of detail would have come from active sources
within Russia. The material, they said, was more likely to have come from conversations
with third parties.
Wood said it seems unlikely that Russian operatives intentionally lied to Steele. He
added that it is not surprising that he has gone into hiding.
"Russia would certainly like to know where he got his information from, assuming his
information is basically true and he hasn't just made it up, which I don't think for a
moment," Wood said. "And they're accustomed to take action."
Still, British and Russian intelligence agents have a long history of spying on one another
and setting traps.
James Hudson, Britain's former deputy counsel in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg,
resigned in 2009 after a film emerged showing him with two women thought to be prostitutes.
More recently, Britain was involved in a diplomatic flap after a former official under
then-Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted that British authorities had rigged up a fake rock in
Moscow to spy on Russians.
Nixey said Moscow is unlikely to have changed its habits "for the simple reason that the
Russians believe they are at war with the West." Anyone, he said, with a "considerable degree
of involvement with Russia, goes there frequently on business, is going to be looked at, to a
greater or lesser extent."
Russians have even coined a word for this type of compromising material: kompromat.
The interests and sympathies of British government are clear form this peace:they are definitely afraid about reopening Clinton
investigation. If British government was behind Steele dossier that was a very dirty job.
Notable quotes:
"... All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe. ..."
In recent weeks, conservative commentators and politicians have begun arguing, with growing intensity, that Robert Mueller's investigation
into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia is the result of an intentional effort by biased investigators to undermine
the Trump presidency.
There are a number of components to the case they are presenting, from doubts about the impartiality of Mr Mueller and his team
to questions about the integrity of the FBI and the Obama-era Justice Department.
All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary
of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe.
Such an action would provoke a major political crisis and could have unpredictable consequences. For Mr Trump's defenders, it
may be enough simply to mire Mr Mueller's investigation in a partisan morass. Here are some are some of the ways they're trying to
do that.
Tell-tale texts?
Peter Strzok, a senior counter-intelligence agent in the FBI and until this summer a top member of Mr Mueller's special counsel
team, has become Exhibit A of anti-Trump bias in the Russia investigation.
A Justice Department inspector general review of the FBI's handling of its 2016 election investigations unearthed text messages
between Mr Strzok and Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer who also temporarily worked on the Mueller investigation and with whom Mr Strzok was
having an extramarital affair.
Some of the messages, which were provided to reporters, showed the two had a hostility toward then-candidate Trump in 2016. Ms
Page called Mr Trump a "loathsome human" in March, as the candidate was cementing his lead in the Republican primary field. Three
months later - after Mr Trump had secured the nomination - Mr Strzok wrote that he was an "idiot" who said "bigoted nonsense".
In an August text, Mr Strzok discussed a meeting with then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in which Ms Page apparently had mentioned
there was "no way" Mr Trump could be elected.
"I'm afraid we can't take that risk," Mr Strzok wrote. "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're
40."
Some have theorised that the "insurance policy" in question was an FBI plan to destroy Mr Trump if he were to win. Others have
suggested that it was simply a reference to the need to continue working the Trump-Russia investigation even though his election
seemed unlikely.
Media caption President Trump renews attack on 'disgraceful' FBI
"It is very sad when you look at those documents," Mr Trump said on Friday, apparently referring to the texts. "And how they've
done that is really, really disgraceful, and you have a lot of very angry people that are seeing it." He said it was a shame what
had happened to the FBI and that it would be "rebuilt".
Since the first coverage of the story, reporters have reviewed more of the Strzok-Page texts and found the two made disparaging
comments about a wide range of public figures, including Chelsea Clinton, Democrat Bernie Sanders, then-Attorney General Eric Holder,
Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich, and Mrs Clinton.
"I'm worried about what happens if HRC is elected," Mr Strzok wrote, referring to Mrs Clinton by her initials.
Why it could matter: If Mr Strzok, a high-ranking member of the FBI who officially launched the initial investigation of ties
between the Trump campaign and Russia, harboured anti-Trump animus, there is the possibility it could have motivated him to influence
the investigation to the president's disadvantage.
Why it might not: Government employees are allowed to express political views as long as they don't influence their job performance.
The breadth of the Strzok-Page texts could indicate they were just gossiping lovers. Without context, Mr Strzok's "insurance" line
is vague. When Mr Mueller learned of the text this summer, Mr Strzok was removed from the independent counsel investigation and reassigned
to a human resources job.
The Clinton case
Mr Strzok also figures prominently in Republican concerns about the FBI's handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's
use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
Mr Strzok took part in interviews with key Clinton aides and
reportedly was involved
in drafting the report that concluded Mrs Clinton's actions did not warrant criminal charges, including changing the description
of her handling of classified material from "grossly negligent" - which might have suggested illegal behaviour - to "extremely careless".
During the campaign Mr Trump repeatedly insisted that the Justice Department should re-open its investigation into Mrs Clinton
and, after backing away from the idea early in his presidency, has once again renewed those calls.
"High ranking FBI officials involved in the Clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election and
clearly let their strong political opinions cloud their professional judgement," Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte said during
a House Judicial Committee hearing.
There's also the possibility that there were more communications between Ms Page and Mr Strzok about the Clinton investigation
that have yet to come to light.
"We text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can't be traced, you were just venting [because] you feel bad that
you're gone so much but it can't be helped right now," Ms Page wrote in one text.
Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he wants more information about the use of these
"untraceable" phones.
Why it could matter: If FBI agents backed off their investigation of Mrs Clinton in 2016 it could be further evidence of bias
within the bureau that could affect its ongoing investigation into Mr Trump. If public confidence in the FBI is eroded, the ultimate
findings of Mr Mueller's probe may be cast in doubt.
Why it might not: Lest anyone forget, Mrs Clinton's candidacy was the one wounded by FBI actions in the final days of the 2016
campaign. Then-Director James Comey's announcement of new evidence in the inquiry into her private email server - perhaps prompted
by anti-Clinton leaks from the bureau's New York office - dominated the headlines and renewed concerns about the former secretary
of state. News of the ongoing Trump-Russia investigation, on the other hand, didn't emerge until well after the election.
Marital woes
When it comes to the ongoing investigations into the investigations, it's not just the actions of the principals involved that
have come under the spotlight. Spouses have figured prominently, as well.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the bureau's second-in-command, is married to Jill McCabe, a paediatrician who ran as a Democrat
for a Virginia state senate seat in 2015 (before Mr McCabe was promoted to his current position). During the hotly contested race,
Ms McCabe received $467,500 in campaign contributions from a political action committee controlled by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe,
a close political ally of the Clinton family.
Conservatives contend that this donation should have disqualified Mr McCabe from involvement in the Clinton case - and was yet
another example of possible anti-Trump bias in the FBI's Russia investigation.
"If Mr McCabe failed to avoid the appearance of a partisan conflict of interest in favour of Mrs Clinton during the presidential
election, then any participation in [the Russia] inquiry creates the exact same appearance of a partisan conflict of interest against
Mr Trump," Senator Grassley wrote in a letter to then-Director Comey in March.
Meanwhile, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr was
recently reported as being employed in 2016 by Fusion GPS, the political research firm that produced the dossier containing unconfirmed
allegations of Mr Trump's Russia entanglements. Mr Ohr himself
has been connected to Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence agent who collected the material for the dossier.
Fusion GPS's anti-Trump research efforts were originally funded by a Republican donor and later backed by groups associated with
the Democratic Party and the Clinton presidential campaign.
Why it matters: "Power couples" - spouses with influential, complementary political jobs - are a Washington tradition, and the
actions of one partner are often considered to reflect on the views and behaviour of the other. In Mr McCabe's case, his wife's Democratic
activism and allegiances could shed light on his political sympathies. For Mr Ohr, his marriage could have served as a conduit to
inject Democratic-funded opposition research into the Justice Department.
Why it might not: Having a political spouse is not evidence of official bias. The identity of the individuals or groups that funded
and gathered anti-Trump research and how it ended up in government hands does not necessarily have a bearing on whether the information
is valid or merits further investigation.
Follow the money
The individuals working on the Russia investigation have been billed as a "dream team" by Democrats and liberal commentators hoping
the efforts will eventually topple the Trump presidency.
Many conservatives beg to differ.
In June, as details of the special counsel hires began to emerge, conservatives noted that some of the biggest names - Andrew
Weissmann, James Quarles, Jeannie Rhee and Michael Dreeben - had given money to Democratic presidential candidates.
"Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair," former Republican Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich tweeted . "Look who he is hiring."
Ms Rhee's private law work included representing Democrats, such as Obama Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and the
Clinton Foundation in a lawsuit brought by a conservative activist group.
Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz recently travelled to Florida with Mr Trump and
said he
told the president that the independent counsel investigation was "infected with bias" against him - a view echoed in the conservative
press.
"What we've seen over the past seven months of the Mueller investigation reveals a lot about how big government can end up becoming
a threat to representative democracy," Laura Ingraham
said on her Fox News programme. "And the more we look at the web of Clinton and Obama loyalists who burrowed into Mueller's office,
the more obvious it all becomes."
Why it could matter: Political donations and legal work may be evidence of the ideological tilt of Mr Mueller's investigative
team. That he has assembled a group of lawyers that may lean to the left could mean the investigation itself is predisposed to findings
damaging to Mr Trump.
Why it might not: Investigators are adversarial by nature, and as long as Mr Mueller's team builds its cases with hard evidence,
personal political views should not matter. While political partisans may focus on staff-level appointments, the investigation will
rise and fall based on perceptions of Mr Mueller himself.
Mr Mueller's waiver
Prior to accepting the position as special counsel investigating possible Trump campaign ties to Russia, Mr Mueller requested
- and received - an "ethics waiver" for possible conflicts of interest from the US Department of Justice.
The government has confirmed the existence of the waiver but has not revealed any details, although speculation at the time was
that it had to do with Mr Mueller's work at the law firm WilmerHale, which represented former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort
- who Mr Mueller has since indicted on money-laundering charges - and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Why it could matter: Without further information about the nature of the waiver,
some are
speculating that there is more to this request than simply routine ethical paperwork. Given that Mr Mueller is a former director
of the FBI, with ties to many of the bureau officials who are now coming under conservative scrutiny, Mr Mueller's own allegiances
are being called into question.
Why it might not: Mr Mueller is a decorated war veteran who, prior to taking the special counsel role was widely praised for his
independence and probity. He was appointed FBI head by Republican George W Bush in 2001. If Mr Mueller's waiver had explosive details
indicating clear bias, it probably would have leaked by now.
"... The letters come a week after speculation that Trump wanted Mueller fired over recent revelations that two former FBI agents, assigned to investigate the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, had sent each other hundreds of 'anti-Trump' text messages during the campaign and election. ..."
More than 40 bipartisan former government officials and attorneys [Deep State globalists] are telling President Trump and Congress
to leave Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller alone so he can do his 'job.'
In two letters, the former U.S. attorneys and Republican and conservative officials pushed back against efforts to discredit the
special counsel investigating [alleged] Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The letters come a week after speculation that Trump wanted Mueller fired over recent revelations that two former FBI agents,
assigned to investigate the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, had sent each other hundreds of 'anti-Trump' text
messages during the campaign and election.
Former FBI Director James Comey is in meltdown mode after his good buddy, the Deputy
Director of the FBI Andy McCabe, just "spilled the beans" to the House Intelligence Committee.
It was a "closed door" hearing, but we now have evidence that you need to know. McCabe
incriminated his pals, and that's really bad news for Comey. Immediately, Comey sent out a
cryptic message to President Donald Trump as he sees his life crumbling before him.
Source:
Comey Panics & Sends Message To Trump After His FBI Buddy Andy McCabe 'Spills The Beans'
https://goo.gl/2oK75n
What do you think of this video? Let us know in the comments below, and in addition, share
this on social media.
Don't let them get you down: "We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who tell
us that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best days. But so said all
before us, and with just as much apparent reason." Thomas Babbington Macaulay (1830)
"... Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S. officials." According to the Post: ..."
"... Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said. ..."
"... I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application included information from the Steele dossier. ..."
"... Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had not been publicly disclosed. ..."
"... given that Page has not been accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation. ..."
"... In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's the word? -- resist. ..."
"... The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period. ..."
"... Clinton was supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all this crap because shit is about to hit the fan. ..."
"... Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge. ..."
"... These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to overthrow the elected government. ..."
"... They really can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt. Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal. ..."
According to the now-infamous text message sent by FBI agent Peter Strzok to his paramour,
FBI lawyer Lisa Page, it was in McCabe's office that top FBI counterintelligence officials
discussed what they saw as the frightening possibility of a Trump presidency.
That was during the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, no more than a couple of weeks after
they started receiving the Steele dossier -- the Clinton campaign's opposition-research
reports, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, about Trump's purportedly
conspiratorial relationship with Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia.
Was it the Steele dossier that so frightened the FBI? I think so.
There is a great deal of information to follow. But let's cut to the chase: The Obama-era
FBI and Justice Department had great faith in Steele because he had previously collaborated
with the bureau on a big case. Plus, Steele was working on the Trump-Russia project with the
wife of a top Obama Justice Department official, who was personally briefed by Steele. The
upper ranks of the FBI and DOJ strongly preferred Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, to the
point of overlooking significant evidence of her felony misconduct, even as they turned up the
heat on Trump. In sum, the FBI and DOJ were predisposed to believe the allegations in Steele's
dossier. Because of their confidence in Steele, because they were predisposed to believe his
scandalous claims about Donald Trump, they made grossly inadequate efforts to verify his
claims. Contrary to what I hoped would be the case, I've come to believe Steele's claims were
used to obtain FISA surveillance authority for an investigation of Trump.
There were layers of insulation between the Clinton campaign and Steele -- the campaign and
the Democratic party retained a law firm, which contracted with Fusion GPS, which in turn hired
the former spy. At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the
dossier was actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one,
after all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden.
The best laid schemes . . . gang aft agley.
Why It Matters
Strzok's text about the meeting in McCabe's office is dated August 16, 2016. As we'll see,
the date is important. According to Agent Strzok, with Election Day less than three months
away, Page, the bureau lawyer, weighed in on Trump's bid: "There's no way he gets elected."
Strzok, however, believed that even if a Trump victory was the longest of long shots, the FBI
"can't take that risk." He insisted that the bureau had no choice but to proceed with a plan to
undermine Trump's candidacy: "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40."
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that, "according to people familiar with his
account," Strzok meant that it was imperative that the FBI "aggressively investigate
allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia." In laughable strawman
fashion, the "people familiar with his account" assure the Journal that Strzok "didn't intend
to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate." Of course, no sensible person suspects that
the FBI was plotting Trump's assassination; the suspicion is that, motivated by partisanship
and spurred by shoddy information that it failed to verify, the FBI exploited its
counterintelligence powers in hopes of derailing Trump's presidential run.
But what were these "allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia"
that the FBI decided to "aggressively investigate"? The Journal doesn't say. Were they the
allegations in the Steele dossier? That is a question I asked in last weekend's column. It is a
question that was pressed by Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) and Republican members of the
House Intelligence Committee at Tuesday's sealed hearing. As I explained in the column, the
question is critical for three reasons:
(1) The Steele dossier was a Clinton campaign product. If it was used by the FBI and the
Obama Justice Department to obtain a FISA warrant, that would mean law-enforcement agencies
controlled by a Democratic president fed the FISA court political campaign material produced
by the Democratic candidate whom the president had endorsed to succeed him. Partisan claims
of egregious scheming with an adversarial foreign power would have been presented to the
court with the FBI's imprimatur, as if they were drawn from refined U.S. intelligence
reporting. The objective would have been to spy on the opposition Republican campaign.
(2) In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was
"salacious and unverified." While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same
way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still
unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months
earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ
used them in an application to the FISA court.
(3) The dossier appears to contain misinformation. Knowing he was a spy-for-hire trusted
by Americans, Steele's Russian-regime sources had reason to believe that misinformation could
be passed into the stream of U.S. intelligence and that it would be acted on -- and leaked --
as if it were true, to America's detriment. This would sow discord in our political system.
If the FBI and DOJ relied on the dossier, it likely means they were played by the Putin
regime.
How Could Something Like This Happen?
We do not have public confirmation that the dossier was, in fact, used by the bureau and the
Justice Department to obtain the FISA warrant. Publicly, FBI and DOJ officials have thwarted
the Congress with twaddle about protecting both intelligence sources and an internal
inspector-general probe. Of course, Congress, which established and funds the DOJ and FBI, has
the necessary security clearances to review classified information, has jurisdiction over the
secret FISA court, and has independent constitutional authority to examine the activities of
legislatively created executive agencies.
In any event, important reporting by Fox News' James Rosen regarding Tuesday's hearing
indicates that the FBI did, in fact, credit the contents of the dossier. It appears, however,
that the bureau corroborated few of Steele's claims, and at an absurdly high level of
generality -- along the lines of: You tell me person A went to place X and committed a crime; I
corroborate only that A went to X and blithely assume that because you were right about the
travel, you must be right about the crime.
Here, the FBI was able to verify Steele's claim that Carter Page, a very loosely connected
Trump-campaign adviser, had gone to Russia. This was not exactly meticulous gumshoe
corroboration: Page told many people he was going to Russia, saw many people while there, and
gave a speech at a prominent Moscow venue. Having verified only the travel information, the FBI
appears to have credited the claims of Steele's anonymous Russian sources that Page carried out
nigh-treasonous activities while in Russia.
How could something like this happen? Well, the FBI and DOJ liked and trusted Steele, for
what seem to be good reasons. As the Washington Post has reported, the former MI-6 agent's
private intelligence firm, Orbis, was retained by England's main soccer federation to
investigate corruption at FIFA, the international soccer organization that had snubbed British
bids to host the World Cup. In 2010, Steele delivered key information to the FBI's
organized-crime liaison in Europe. This helped the bureau build the Obama Justice Department's
most celebrated racketeering prosecution: the indictment of numerous FIFA officials and other
corporate executives. Announcing the first wave of charges in May 2015, Attorney General
Loretta Lynch made a point of thanking the investigators' "international partners" for their
"outstanding assistance."
At the time, Bruce Ohr was the Obama Justice Department's point man for "Transnational
Organized Crime and International Affairs," having been DOJ's long-serving chief of the
Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. He also wore a second, top-echelon DOJ hat: associate
deputy attorney general. That made him a key adviser to the deputy attorney general, Sally
Yates (who later, as acting attorney general, was fired for insubordinately refusing to enforce
President Trump's so-called travel ban). In the chain of command, the FBI reports to the DAG's
office.
To do the Trump-Russia research, Steele had been retained by the research firm Fusion GPS
(which, to repeat, had been hired by lawyers for the Clinton campaign and the DNC). Fusion GPS
was run by its founder, former Wall Street Journal investigative journalist Glenn Simpson.
Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, a Russia scholar, worked for Simpson at Fusion. The Ohrs and Simpson
appear to be longtime acquaintances, dating back to when Simpson was a senior fellow at the
International Assessment and Strategy Center. In 2010, all three participated in a two-day
conference on international organized crime, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice
(see conference schedule and participant list, pp. 27 -- 30). In connection with the Clinton
campaign's Trump-Russia project, Fusion's Nellie Ohr collaborated with Steele and Simpson, and
DOJ's Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele and Simpson.
Manifestly, the DOJ and FBI were favorably disposed toward Steele and Fusion GPS. I suspect
that these good, productive prior relationships with the dossier's source led the investigators
to be less exacting about corroborating the dossier's claims.
But that is just the beginning of the bias story.
At a high level, the DOJ and FBI were in the tank for Hillary Clinton. In July 2016, shortly
before Steele's reports started floating in, the FBI and DOJ announced that no charges would be
brought against Mrs. Clinton despite damning evidence that she mishandled classified
information, destroyed government files, obstructed congressional investigations, and lied to
investigators. The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are legion: President
Obama making it clear in public statements that he did not want Clinton charged; the FBI,
shortly afterwards, drafting an exoneration of Clinton months before the investigation ended
and central witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; investigators failing to
use the grand jury to compel the production of key evidence; the DOJ restricting FBI agents in
their lines of inquiry and examination of evidence; the granting of immunity to suspects who in
any other case would be pressured to plead guilty and cooperate against more-culpable suspects;
the distorting of criminal statutes to avoid applying them to Clinton; the sulfurous tarmac
meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton shortly before Mrs. Clinton
was given a peremptory interview -- right before then -- FBI director Comey announced that she
would not be charged.
The blatant preference for Clinton over Trump smacked of politics and self-interest. Deputy
FBI director McCabe's wife had run for the Virginia state legislature as a Democrat, and her
(unsuccessful) campaign was lavishly funded by groups tied to Clinton insider Terry McAuliffe.
Agent Strzok told FBI lawyer Page that Trump was an "idiot" and that "Hillary should win 100
million to 0." Page agreed that Trump was "a loathsome human." A Clinton win would likely mean
Lynch -- originally raised to prominence when President Bill Clinton appointed her to a coveted
U.S. attorney slot -- would remain attorney general. Yates would be waiting in the wings.
The prior relationships of trust with the source; the investment in Clinton; the certitude
that Clinton would win and deserved to win, signified by the mulish determination that she not
be charged in the emails investigation; the sheer contempt for Trump. This concatenation led
the FBI and DOJ to believe Steele -- to want to believe his melodramatic account of
Trump-Russia corruption. For the faithful, it was a story too good to check.
The DOJ and FBI, having dropped a criminal investigation that undeniably established Hillary
Clinton's national-security recklessness, managed simultaneously to convince themselves that
Donald Trump was too much of a national-security risk to be president.
The Timeline
As I noted in last weekend's column, reports are that the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA
warrant targeting Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page). For a time, Page was tangentially
tied to the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser -- he barely knew Trump. The warrant was
reportedly obtained after the Trump campaign and Page had largely severed ties in early August
2016. We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the
Washington Post have reported, citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September
2016 (see here, here, and here). Further, the DOJ and FBI reportedly persuaded the FISA court
to extend the surveillance after the first warrant's 90-day period lapsed -- meaning the spying
continued into Trump's presidency.
The FBI and DOJ would have submitted the FISA application to the court shortly before the
warrant was issued. In the days-to-weeks prior to petitioning the court, the FISA application
would have been subjected to internal review at the FBI -- raising the possibility that FBI
lawyer Page was in the loop reviewing the investigative work of Agent Strzok, with whom she was
having an extramarital affair. There would also have been review at the Justice Department --
federal law requires that the attorney general approve every application to the FISA court.
Presumably, these internal reviews would have occurred in mid-to-late August -- around the
time of the meeting in McCabe's office referred to in Strzok's text. Thus, we need to
understand the relevant events before and after mid-to-late August. Here is a timeline.
June 2016
In June 2016, Steele began to generate the reports that collectively are known as the
"dossier."
In the initial report, dated June 20, 2016, Steele alleged that Putin's regime had been
"cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years." (Steele's reports conform
to the FBI and intelligence-agency reporting practice of rendering names of interest in
capital letters.) The Kremlin was said to have significant blackmail material that could be
used against Trump.
In mid-to-late June 2016, according to Politico, Carter Page asked J. D. Gordon, his
supervisor on the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee, for permission to go
on a trip to Russia in early July. Gordon advised against it. Page then sent an email to
Corey Lewandowski, who was Trump's campaign manager until June 20, and Hope Hicks, the Trump
campaign spokeswoman, seeking permission to go on the trip. Word came back to Page by email
that he could go, but only in his private capacity, not as a representative of the Trump
campaign. Lewandowski says he has never met Carter Page.
July 2016
Page, a top-of-the-class graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with various other academic
distinctions, traveled to Moscow for a three-day trip, the centerpiece of which was a July 7
commencement address at the New Economic School (the same institution at which President
Obama gave a commencement address on July 7, 2009). The New York Times has reported, based on
leaks from "current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials," that Page's July
trip to Moscow "was a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia
and President Trump's campaign." The Times does not say what information the FBI had received
that made the Moscow trip such a "catalyst."
Was it the Steele dossier?
Well, on July 19, Steele reported that, while in Moscow, Page had held secret meetings
with two top Putin confederates, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin. Steele claimed to have been
informed by "a Russian source close to" Sechin, the president of Russia's energy conglomerate
Rosneft, that Sechin had floated to Page the possibility of "US-Russia energy co-operation"
in exchange for the "lifting of western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine." Page was said
to have reacted "positively" but in a manner that was "non-committal."
Another source, apparently Russian, told Steele that "an official close to" Putin chief of
staff Sergei Ivanov had confided to "a compatriot" that Igor Diveykin (of the "Internal
Political Department" of Putin's Presidential Administration) had also met with Page in
Moscow. (Note the dizzying multiple-hearsay basis of this information.) Diveykin is said to
have told Page that the regime had "a dossier of 'kompromat'" -- compromising information --
on Hillary Clinton that it would consider releasing to Trump's "campaign team." Diveykin
further "hinted (or indicated more strongly) that the Russian leadership also had 'kompromat'
on TRUMP which the latter should bear in mind in his dealings with them."
The hacked DNC emails were first released on July 22, shortly before the Democratic
National Convention, which ran from July 25 through 28.
In "late July 2016," Steele claimed to have been told by an "ethnic Russian close
associate of . . . TRUMP" that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation"
between "them" (apparently meaning Trump's inner circle) and "the Russian leadership." The
conspiracy was said to be "managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign
manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy adviser, Carter PAGE, and others as
intermediaries."
The same source claimed that the Russian regime had been behind the leak of DNC emails "to
the WikiLeaks platform," an operation the source maintained "had been conducted with the full
knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team." As a quid pro quo,
"the TRUMP team" was said to have agreed (a) "to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as
a campaign issue," and (b) to raise the failure of NATO nations to meet their defense
commitments as a distraction from Russian aggression in Ukraine, "a priority for PUTIN who
needed to cauterise the subject."
Late July to Early August 2016
The Washington Post has reported that Steele's reports were first transmitted "by an
intermediary" to the FBI and other U.S. intelligence officials after the Democratic National
Convention (which, to repeat, ended on July 28). The intermediary is not identified. We do
not know if it was Fusion, though that seems likely given that Fusion shared its work with
government and non-government entities. Steele himself is also said to have contacted "a
friend in the FBI" about his research after the Democratic convention. As we've seen, Steele
made bureau friends during the FIFA investigation.
August 2016
On August 11, as recounted in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report, FBI agent
Strzok texted the following message to FBI lawyer Page: "OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE
SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS." The Journal does not
elaborate on what "allegations" Strzok was referring to, or the source of those
allegations.
On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office
at which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency and
needed something akin to an "insurance policy" even though Trump's election was thought
highly unlikely.
September 2016
Reporting indicates that sometime in September 2016, the DOJ and FBI applied to the FISA
court for a warrant to surveil Carter Page, and that the warrant was granted.
Interestingly, on September 23, 2016, Yahoo's Michael Isikoff reported on leaks he had
received that the U.S. government was conducting an intelligence investigation to determine
whether Carter Page, as a Trump adviser, had opened up a private communications channel with
such "senior Russian officials" as Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin to discuss lifting economic
sanctions if Trump became president.
It is now known that Isikoff's main source for the story was Fusion's Glenn Simpson.
Isikoff's report is rife with allegations found in the dossier, although the dossier is not
referred to as such; it is described as "intelligence reports" that "U.S. officials" were
actively investigating -- i.e., Steele's reports were described in a way that would lead
readers to assume they were official U.S. intelligence reports. But there clearly was
official American government involvement: Isikoff's story asserts that U.S. officials were
briefing members of Congress about these allegations that Page was meeting with Kremlin
officials on Trump's behalf. The story elaborated that "questions about Page come amid
mounting concerns within the U.S. intelligence community about Russian cyberattacks on the
Democratic National Committee." Those would be the cyberattacks alleged -- in the dossier on
which Congress was being briefed -- to be the result of a Trump-Russia conspiracy in which
Page was complicit.
Isikoff obviously checked with his government sources to verify what Simpson had told him
about the ongoing investigation that was based on these "intelligence reports." His story
recounts that "a senior U.S. law enforcement official" confirmed that Page's alleged contacts
with Russian officials were "on our radar screen. . . . It's being looked at."
Final Points to Consider
After his naval career, Page worked in investing, including several years at Merrill Lynch
in Moscow. As my column last weekend detailed, he has been an apologist for the Russian regime,
championing appeasement for the sake of better U.S. -- Russia relations. Page has acknowledged
that, during his brief trip to Moscow in July 2016, he ran into some Russian government
officials, among many old Russian friends and acquaintances. Yet he vehemently denies meeting
with Sechin and Diveykin. (While Sechin's name is well known to investors in the Russian energy
sector, Page says that he has never met him and that he had never even heard Diveykin's name
until the Steele dossier was publicized in early 2017.)
Furthermore, Page denies even knowing Paul Manafort, much less being used by Manafort as an
intermediary between the Trump campaign and Russia. Page has filed a federal defamation lawsuit
against the press outlets that published the dossier, has denied the dossier allegations in FBI
interviews, and has reportedly testified before the grand jury in Robert Mueller's
special-counsel investigation.
Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted
informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the
Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S.
officials." According to the Post:
The government's application for the surveillance order targeting Page included a lengthy
declaration that laid out investigators' basis for believing that Page was an agent of the
Russian government and knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of
Moscow, officials said.
Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence
operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a
federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative
and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with
Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said.
I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application
included information from the Steele dossier. That is, when the Post speaks of Page's purported
"other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed," this is very
likely a reference to the meetings with Sechin and Diveykin that Page denies having had -- the
meetings described in the dossier. Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this
Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the
FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had
not been publicly disclosed.
Two final points.
First : The FISA application's reliance on 2013 events as a basis for suspicion in 2016
that Page was a foreign agent of Russia is curious. The 2013 investigation involved Russian
intelligence operatives who were trying to recruit business people, such as Page, as sources
-- i.e., Page was being approached by Russia, not acting on Russia's behalf. In the 2013
investigation, Page met with a Russian agent, whom he apparently did not realize was an
agent. They met at an energy symposium in New York and Page did networking-type things:
exchanging contact information and providing his jejune assessment of the energy sector's
prospects. The Russian agent described Page as an "idiot" in a recorded conversation.
According to Page, he cooperated with the FBI and helped prosecutors in the case against one
of the suspects -- claims that the government could easily disprove if he is lying.
Second : In reporting on the FISA warrant that targeted Page, the Washington Post
asserted that "an application for electronic surveillance under [FISA] need not show evidence
of a crime." That is not accurate.
Under federal surveillance law (sec. 1801 of Title 50, U.S. Code), the probable-cause
showing the government must make to prove that a person is an agent of a foreign power is
different for Americans than for aliens. If the alleged agent is an alien, section 1801(b)(1)
applies, and this means that no crime need be established; the government need only show that
the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power in the sense of abetting its clandestine
anti-American activities.
By contrast, if the alleged agent is an American citizen, such as Page, section 1801(b)(2)
applies: The government must show not only that the person is engaged in clandestine activities
on behalf of a foreign power but also that these activities
(1) "involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United
States";
(2) involve the preparation for or commission of sabotage or international
terrorism;
(3) involve using a false identity to enter or operate in the United States on behalf of
a foreign power; or (4) involve conspiring with or aiding and abetting another person in the
commission of these criminal activities.
All of these involve evidence of a crime.
The only known suspicions about Page that have potential criminal implications are the
allegations in the dossier, which potentially include hacking, bribery, fraud, and racketeering
-- if Russia were formally considered an enemy of the United States, they would include
treason. The FBI always has information we do not know about. But given that Page has not been
accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal
activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it
certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation.
In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded
in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the
Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle
for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media
narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift
sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and
President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's
the word? -- resist.
No way the "insurance policy" was this .... dossier. It had made the rounds for almost a
year by then. It was a TOOL for then present-day activities (campaign propaganda and
obtaining FISA warrants). Everyone knew it was floating around by then.
An insurance policy is something that activates based on a completely unexpected
contingency- premature death. Does it seem to you that a bogus report that had been rattling
around doing it's intended work for almost six months is that thing? Sure as shit doesn't
sound like that to me.
The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible
method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period.
Could the FBI be that broke, that persuasive, that wreckless? I suspect it is mainly at
the top politically appointed positions that take us down that road? Trouble is they take the
full agency along with them. Congress has implicit responsibility here also.
This will take
some serious unwinding to officially expose the truth that many know exist. Attaching names
to these truths is the hard part. As painful as it may be a Watergate style investigation is
in order. Justice must be served to demonstrate unacceptable, illegal, nation harming
activity is not tolerated at any level. Without it we have reached moral nihilism.
Other
They must have thought Trump had a chance or why would they bother? Maybe not so sure of
Hillary after all? Something don't add up with the surity of a Clinton presidency?
"On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office at
which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency
......."
"At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the dossier was
actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one, after
all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden."
This is the entirety of the scandal. I've been saying it all along. ...Clinton was
supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all
this crap because shit is about to hit the fan.
Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant
they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will
illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge.
We do have things to be grateful for this evening though and just ZH itself has provided
us with a space to vent, to cry, to laugh and now maybe to hope.
Merry Christmas to each and every one here - unseen but cared for friends.
But here's the good news: Rosenstein, Wray and reportedly McCabe have all declined to
answer if the golden shower dossier was used in the FISA warrant for surveillance of Carter
Page, and/or Manafort. If the dossier WAS the reason and is now discredited oppo-research,
then in all likelihood we're looking at huge FBI violation of due process, and a 'fruit of
the poisoned tree' instance. That means that any evidence which could be used against Trump
which originated from this surveillance would be thrown out of court. The FBI must know
this.
These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when
politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to
overthrow the elected government.
Reasoned article and McCarthy is a former Federal Prosecutor using what is recognized as
standard operating procedures in these cases to figure this out. I've come to the same
conclusion months back. He obviously has a reputation and can't just sling it... They really
can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt.
Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's
Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal.
(VIDEO) There is a provable corruption at high level of FBI and group of high level official which
engaged in constant and deliberate undermining the rule of law and enforce their opinion on
American people.
Newt Gingrich says they're all going to jail. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with Fox
News' Sean Hannity called the spying on President Trump and the cover-up of Hillary Clinton's
wrongdoing one of the worst breaches of our justice system ever
I recently read Ed Klein's book All Out War. It took the Obama admin 3 attempts to finally
get the FISA warrant which they used to spy on Trump for oppo research. Susan Rice and
Valerie Jarrett were for it. Michelle was against
As a Clinton campaign project, the campaign was obligated to report the expenditure on
their FEC report. Which they did not. That is another un processed crime
Clinton is the one who could shoot someone in NYC and get away with it.
I'm no Newt Gingrich fan. He is a top globalist, (or was) The former college professor is
one of the most intelligent observers out there. It's well worth hearing what Newt has to say
in this Hannity interview. He says the corruption is unprecedented and they are all going to
jail!
An insurance policy is a sure thing . When I hear 'insurance policy' in this context being
discussed by these supremely arrogant, venal fucks in McCabe's office, what comes to my mind
is thoughts of vote fixing . Trump's 'rigged system'. Put 'em all - McCabe, Strzok, Page,
Priestap, Comey, and whomever else, under oath and find out the precise nature of the
'insurance policy' they were discussing, and what Strzok meant by 'many levels'.
Mary Jacoby, the wife of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, who is the man in the middle of
the entire Russiagate scandal, boasted on Facebook about how 'Russiagate,' would not exist if
it weren't for her husband.
A Tablet investigation using public sources to trace the evolution of the now-famous
dossier suggests that central elements of the Russiagate scandal emerged not from the British
ex-spy Christopher Steele's top-secret "sources" in the Russian government -- which are
unlikely to exist separate from Russian government control -- but from a series of stories
that Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson and his wife Mary Jacoby co-wrote for TheWall Street
Journal well before Fusion GPS existed, and Donald Trump was simply another loud-mouthed
Manhattan real estate millionaire. Understanding the origins of the "Steele dossier" is
especially important because of what it tells us about the nature and the workings of what
its supporters would hopefully describe as an ongoing campaign to remove the elected
president of the United States.
...
In a Facebook post from June 24, 2017, that Tablet has seen in screenshots, Jacoby claimed
that her husband deserves the lion's share of credit for Russiagate. (She has not replied to
repeated requests for comment.)
"It's come to my attention that some people still don't realize what Glenn's role was in
exposing Putin's control of Donald Trump," Jacoby wrote. "Let's be clear. Glenn conducted the
investigation. Glenn hired Chris Steele. Chris Steele worked for Glenn."
This assertion is hardly a simple assertion of family pride; it goes directly to the
nature of what became known as the "Steele dossier," on which the Russiagate narrative is
founded.
The Gateway Pundit reports that the news of the Facebook post comes amid heightened
scrutiny for the opposition research firm.
According to Fox News reporter Jake Gibson, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has called on a
senior Justice Department attorney to look into appointing a special counsel to investigate
recently demoted official Bruce Ohr's contacts with Fusion GPS.
"Sessions on calls for a special counsel to look into Sr DOJ Official Bruce Ohr, and wife
Nellie's contacts with Fusion GPS during the summer and fall of 2016: I've put a Senior
Attorney, with the resources he may need, to review cases in our office and make a
recommendation to me, if things aren't being pursued that need to be pursued, if cases may
need more resources to complete in a proper manner, and to recommend to me if the standards
for a special counsel are met, and the recommended one should be established," tweeted Fox
News reporter Jake Gibson on Tuesday.
Fox News ' James Rosen and Jake Gibson recently reported the wife of Justice Department
official Bruce G. Ohr worked for the opposition research firm during the 2016 presidential
election.
Contacted by Fox News, investigators for the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence (HPSCI) confirmed that Nellie H. Ohr, wife of the demoted official, Bruce G.
Ohr, worked for the opposition research firm last year. The precise nature of Mrs. Ohr's
duties – including whether she worked on the dossier – remains unclear but a
review of her published works available online reveals Mrs. Ohr has written extensively on
Russia-related subjects. HPSCI staff confirmed to Fox News that she was paid by Fusion GPS
through the summer and fall of 2016.
In a statement to Fox News, a Justice Department spokesperson noted that
"It is unusual for anyone to wear two hats as he has done recently. This person is going
to go back to a single focus - director of our organized crime and drug enforcement unit. As
you know, combatting transnational criminal organizations and drug trafficking is a top
priority for the Attorney General."
I'm pretty sure Section II out lines all of this! Granted it was replaced by the 1918
Sedition Act but the premis is still there!
SEDITION ACT.
An act in addition to the act intituled, "An act for the punishment of certain crimes
against the United States ."
[Approved July 14, 1798.]
ABSTRACT.
SECTION I. Punishes combinations against United States government.
1. Definition of offence:
Unlawfully to combine or conspire together to oppose any measure of the government of
the United States, &c. This section was not complained of.
2. Grade of offence:
A high misdemeanour.
3. Punishment:
Fine not exceeding $5000, and imprisonment six months to five years.
SECTION II. Punishes seditious writings .
1. Definition of offence:
To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false,
scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either
House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt
or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or
to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to
resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.
2. Grade of offence:
A misdemeanour.
3. Punishment:
Fine not exceeding $2000, and imprisonment not exceeding two years
"... So these individuals should be questioned about what was meant by the phrase "insurance policy." There is no need to speculate on the meaning of that phrase... as this author does. Direct inquiry of these individuals must be conducted and if they are not fully forthcoming with answers they should be terminated by the executive branch immediately. It will take some cooperation between the branches of government but it is necessary. And if anyone has been unfaithful to their office they should lose their retirement benefits too. that is the only way we can stop this crap from happening again. ..."
When you are in such a high office you do not have the liberty of claiming the Fifth. Anyone
in office, at or near the level of McCabe's position, who refuses to answer questions should be
terminated on the spot. No further need to elaborate. And the interrogation should be conducted
in public lest we lose faith in assinine-appearing-individuals we call our congress men and
women.
Why should we trust a committee to interrogate in private and then deliver a consensus
opinion of the interrogation when there is so little trust in government? All testimony should
be public... let the public determine the truth in these matters. The verdict can be rendered
in the next election.
So these individuals should be questioned about what was meant by the phrase "insurance
policy." There is no need to speculate on the meaning of that phrase... as this author does.
Direct inquiry of these individuals must be conducted and if they are not fully forthcoming
with answers they should be terminated by the executive branch immediately. It will take some
cooperation between the branches of government but it is necessary. And if anyone has been
unfaithful to their office they should lose their retirement benefits too. that is the only way
we can stop this crap from happening again.
Set an example!
Why are we fooling around with these issues. Unelected individuals are striking at the heart
of our government. Who is in control here? if the allegations against Strzok regarding a
meeting in McCabe's office are true then a crime has been committed.
This is your turn to cleanse the government President Trump. Keep Twittering. I have faith
in you.
The question is when does Opposition Research cross the line and become criminal conduct.
Notable quotes:
"... By now, most Americans paying attention have heard about Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's lead investigators on the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump – Russia collusion probe. Strzok was second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI. He, single-handedly, put a dark cloud over the integrity of the two investigations when it was recently disclosed that he had exchanged thousands of politically-charged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, a senior FBI attorney. The couple used FBI-supplied cell phones to transmit and receive the text messages ..."
By now, most Americans paying attention have heard about Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's
lead investigators on the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump – Russia collusion
probe. Strzok was second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI. He, single-handedly, put
a dark cloud over the integrity of the two investigations when it was recently disclosed that
he had exchanged thousands of politically-charged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, a
senior FBI attorney. The couple used FBI-supplied cell phones to transmit and receive the text
messages . The House Judiciary Committee requested copies of all the text messages from
the Department of Justice but only received a small fraction of them.
Numerous text messages show, in explicit detail, that Strzok and Page were big fans of
Hillary Clinton during the time she was being investigated for violations of the Espionage Act
and while she was campaigning to be president of the U.S. The messages also show the utter
contempt they had for Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump.
When Robert Mueller, special prosecutor in the Trump – Russia collusion investigation,
learned about the existence of these text messages last July, he removed Peter Strzok from his
team of investigators. Strzok was re-assigned to the FBI's human resources department and is
still on the payroll.
After the name of FBI agent Peter Strzok catapulted above the fold, we learned more about
his wide-ranging assignments at the FBI.
Two months prior to then FBI Director, James Comey's formal exoneration of Hillary Clinton,
Strzok edited Comey's draft exoneration letter and suggested key changes that watered down the
allegations against her.
Strzok was present at the FBI's interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016. Clinton
wasn't put under oath prior to her questioning nor was the proceeding recorded, making the
softball interrogation a farce.
Strzok also interviewed Clinton associates, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Miller, the previous
month. These interrogations have been roundly criticized by legal authorities as nothing more
than a charade because it is unheard of to have two potential witnesses present at the same
interview.
Strzok was selected to be a key investigator on Mueller's team looking into potential
collusion between President Trump and Russia. He participated in the interview of Michael
Flynn, President Trump's short-lived National Security Advisor, who has pleaded guilty to lying
to the FBI and is now cooperating with the Mueller probe.
Strzok is suspected of being responsible for using an unverified dossier to obtain a FISA
warrant in order to spy on President Trump's campaign.
In one particularly disturbing text message Strzok refers to an insurance policy of some kind
if Trump should be elected, which could be the genesis of the current Trump – Russia
collusion probe, which is yet to yield any hard evidence of collusion.
Apparently, super-agent Peter Strzok was a very busy man at the Bureau and the go-to guy on
high-profile cases involving political figures.
A senior investigator, who expresses extreme opinions about politicians while he is
investigating them, degrades his ability to be objective. One would have to be in deep denial
to believe that Strzok's political sentiments didn't influence his handling of the Clinton
case. Strzok's kid glove treatment of Clinton and her aides during their interviews and his
edits of Comey's draft exoneration document are completely consistent with his favorable
political view of Clinton.
It boggles the mind to think that senior FBI officials, like Strzok and Page, would be
foolish enough to leave an electronic trail of their political proclivities. It is a gross
understatement to say that they should have known better. Apparently, they and others in the
Department of Justice never thought such conflicts of interest would ever be exposed because
they were thoroughly convinced Hillary Clinton would be the next president and their next boss.
They committed the mortal sin of presumption and are suffering the consequences. Presumption
coupled with a monumental lack of discretion increases the chances that a scandal will ensue
and that's exactly what happened in this case.
Although Peter Strzok was highly regarded within the Bureau, no one ever heard of him until
he became an overnight media sensation along with his paramour, Lisa Page. As damning as the
flurry of text messages is to the probity of high-profile criminal investigations, it may only
be the beginning salvo in a barrage of shattering revelations because there are thousands of
his text messages that haven't been released yet. The small fraction that have been submitted
to congress were partially redacted. Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, is also
seeking Strzok's text messages under the Freedom of Information Act. And the House Judiciary
Committee intends to subpoena Strzok to testify under oath.
The DOJ and the FBI have studiously resisted requests for information by claiming the matter
is still under investigation or would compromise intelligence methods and sources, if the
records were released. They say Justice Department Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, is
reviewing the FBI's handling of investigations relating to the presidential election.
Therefore, DOJ officials say congress will have to wait until the IG's review is finished,
giving the IG precedence over congressional oversight. The extreme reluctance of the DOJ and
the FBI to be forthcoming seems to be motivated by a sense of self-preservation more than
anything else given the can of worms Strzok's text messages has opened. This thing could easily
metastasize into a mega-scandal that undermines our justice system at its core.
At the center of this escalating controversy is Mr. Strzok, who is a veritable one-man band.
As the FBI's lead investigator, the guy was all over the place. When James Comey sought input
on the draft Clinton exoneration letter, he solicited and accepted Strzok's recommendations.
Strzok responded with a now-infamous turn-of-phrase. He suggested that Comey change "grossly
negligent" to "extremely careless" when describing Clinton's handling of classified
information. Strzok also watered down Comey's statement that it's "reasonably likely that
hostile actors gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email
account." Strzok thought it would be less harmful to say "possible" than "reasonably likely"
when characterizing our enemies' potential access to hacked classified information.
Despite being indiscrete with his political views, Peter Strzok appears to be a very bright
individual whose counsel was avidly sought and valued by the top echelon of the FBI. In this
respect, he was a lot like Mark Fuhrman, who was the most alert detective on the OJ Simpson
case, seemingly everywhere at the crime scenes. Ultimately, Fuhrman was accused of being
prejudiced against blacks and decided to take the Fifth during the Simpson trial. Strzok may
face a similar fate, except his biases run toward politics.
Like Forrest Gump, the slow-witted protagonist in the eponymous Academy Award winning film,
Strzok was everywhere at defining points in the high-profile FBI investigations of a sitting
president and a would-be president. Unlike Forrest Gump, however, Strzok is anything but
slow-witted. Unfortunately, he let his political predilections affect his law enforcement
duties, which is anathema to the bedrock principle of equal justice under the law.
If the bulk of Strzok's text messages, when released, show that the FBI associates with whom
he communicated had a similar rabid disdain or excessive adoration for those they were
investigating, then the cases they were involved with would be tainted and compromised. And the
premier investigatory body in the world will be derided as the Federal Bureau of
Indiscretion.
Honest rank-and-file FBI agents deserve better. They shouldn't have to report to corrupt
leaders who play politics and sully the Bureau's reputation. If FBI agents see something, they
should say something. The evidence and only the evidence should dictate how the law is applied.
To do otherwise is a travesty of justice.
"... we have email evidence from Andrew McCabe indicating that Hillary Clinton was going to get an 'HQ Special,' a headquarters special. ..."
"... he had a very small group of people that had a pro-Hillary Clinton bias who had a direct role in changing that investigation from one that likely should have been criminal to one where she was able to walk. And so I think that we've gotta ensure that that never happens again, that the same processes that would apply to any American would also apply to people who were running for president of the United States ..."
Friday on FNC's "America's Newsroom," Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said a congressional committee had evidence FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe indicated Hillary Clinton was going to get an "HQ special" regarding the investigation of her unauthorized email server and
ties to the Clinton Foundation during her tenure as secretary of state.
Gaetz, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, described the circumstances at the FBI regarding the investigation as "extreme
pro-Hillary Clinton bias."
"The Judiciary Committee is engaged in an investigation, particularly as it relates to the handling of the Hillary Clinton
email scandal and any potential investigations of the Clinton Foundation and the handling of bribes or other types of improper
payments," Gaetz said. "I can certainly say that my impression after these interviews is that there was extreme pro-Hillary Clinton
bias that benefitted her in this investigation and that she received special treatment as a consequence of her candidacy for president.
That shouldn't happen. The law should apply equally to all Americans whether they're political candidates or not. And so, we need
to institute reforms through the Judiciary Committee for more oversight, for more transparency so that this never happens again."
He went on explain that it was the committee's intention to find out if there was a departure from standard "procedures."
"[O]ur view is we need to find out if whether or not the procedures were departed from," he added. "And we have email evidence
from Andrew McCabe indicating that Hillary Clinton was going to get an 'HQ Special,' a headquarters special. That meant that
the normal processes of the Washington field office weren't followed and he had a special. And he had a very small group of
people that had a pro-Hillary Clinton bias who had a direct role in changing that investigation from one that likely should have
been criminal to one where she was able to walk. And so I think that we've gotta ensure that that never happens again, that the
same processes that would apply to any American would also apply to people who were running for president of the United States."
McCabe, who has been the target of Republican critics for more than a year, spent hours in
Congress this past week, facing questions behind closed doors from members of three
committees.
Republicans said they were dissatisfied with his answers:
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), has
called for McCabe's ouster, saying he "ought to go for reasons of being involved in some of
the things that took place in the previous administration. We want to make sure that there's
not undue political influence within the FBI -- the [Justice] Department and the
FBI."
He and Peter Strzok were two principal people have been involved in
He has also been deeply involved in the FBI's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election and the potential
involvement of the Trump campaign
The US president, Donald Trump , has again questioned
the impartiality of the deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, who is planning to retire from the bureau in the months ahead
after being buffeted by attacks over alleged anti-Trump bias in the agency.
In a tweet on Saturday, the president wrote: "How can FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin' James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including
her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife's campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?"
... ... ...
From his South Florida home, where he is spending the holidays, Trump also tweeted that McCabe "is racing the clock to retire
with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!".
Could be questioned: Two House committees are to make formal requests to interview Lisa
Page, Strzok's FBI lawyer lover, after their exchange of anti-Trump texts was revealed
But the political storm the lovers have created is huge.
On Tuesday Strzok's boss Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI Director, was questioned for hours by
the House Intelligence Committee behind closed doors.
McCabe is also facing demands from two other House committees that he answer questions on
the Clinton probe in the wake of the texts being revealed.
The chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte, and the Oversight Committee,
Trey Gowdy, have requested transcribed interviews with him, CNBC reported.
They have also asked for a formal interview with Page, a registered Democrat who texted
Strzok: 'God Trump is a loathsome human.'
... ... ...
The two lovers' texts had detailed their contempt for Trump and backing for Clinton, who
Strzok had played a key role in clearing.
Strzok is reported to have been the official who changed a draft of then FBI Director James
Comey's statement describing Clinton's conduct.
He is said to have removed the term 'grossly negligent' – language that mirrors the
criminal code – to the softer words 'extremely careless', which does not rise to the
level at which a criminal charge can be brought.
He also played a part in clearing her two closest associates, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills,
of lying to the FBI despite their evidence in a formal interview being at odds with emails they
had sent.
The email probe included interviews with several senior Clinton aides including lawyer Mills
and chief of staff Abedin.
Mills and Abedin both denied knowing of Clinton's unorthodox email server setup, according
to summaries of their interviews that the Bureau released last year.
'Mills did not learn Clinton was using a private server until after Clinton's [State
Department] tenure. Mills stated she was not even sure she knew what a server was at the time,'
one agent's interview notes read.
And Abedin told agents, they wrote, that she 'did not know that Clinton had a private server
until about a year and a half ago when it became public knowledge.'
But in emails released by the State Department, Mills and Abedin both referred to Clinton's
server specifically. Lying to the FBI is a federal felony, but charges were not brought against
either woman.
... ... ...
Strzok was removed from the Mueller team in August because of the texts, while Page had
already left before they emerged.
" God Hillary should win. 100,000,000-0"
Strzok to Page
But their existence was never disclosed and the affair was revealed early in December by the
Washington Post.
... ... ...
The texts included a lengthy exchange in early March in which Page - a registered Democrat -
told her lover: 'God Trump is loathsome human.'
Page replied 'Omg he's an idiot' and Page said: 'He's awful', prompting Strzok to say:
'America will get what the voting public deserves.'
" F TRUMP"
Strzok to Page
In the same exchange Strzok said: 'God Hillary should win. 100,000,000-0.'
At the time the Clinton email probe was in full swing and Strzok was a key figure in it,
under the direct supervision of Comey. Strzok also appears to have updated Page on the state of
the Clinton investigation. In June he texted her: 'Now we're talking about Clinton, and how a
lot of people are holding their breath, hoping.' And in July, after Comey announced that
Clinton would not be prosecuted he texted her: 'F TRUMP.'
That prompted her to reply: 'And maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're
meant to protect the country from that menace.'
He texted her: 'Thanks. It's absolutely true that we're both very fortunate. And of course
I'll try and approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our
country at many levels, not sure if that helps'.
But the text which has caused the most concern in Trump circles is one Strzok sent about an
'insurance policy' discussed at a meeting which Page and Strzok attended with McCabe, then
Comey's deputy.
" It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40"
Strzok to Page
'I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office - that
there's no way he gets elected - but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 ' he texted her in August
2016.
Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has demanded that the deputy
attorney general hand over any other messages, emails or documents which would explain what
Strzok meant.
He also asked for details of what Strzok meant when he said: 'we text on that phone when we
talk about hillary because it can't be traced, you were just venting bc you feel bad that
you're gone so much but it can't be helped right now.'
"... as he made the point at the end about the RINOs, the DNC, the deep state and FBI all working in concert to defeat him and President Trump won anyway, all I could think of is that before this is all over they will be pointing to that massive illegal conspiracy as the "smoking gun" evidence that proves that he must have had outside help to win the election. ..."
"... "We had the dirtiest, most evil, most experienced traitors in the political sphere illegally using the entire US federal law enforcement apparatus to destroy him and cover it up...the only people who could have been more criminal than that and caused him to prevail is THE RUSSIANS!" ..."
as he made the point at the end
about the RINOs, the DNC, the deep state and FBI all working in concert to defeat him and
President Trump won anyway, all I could think of is that before this is all over they will
be pointing to that massive illegal conspiracy as the "smoking gun" evidence that proves
that he must have had outside help to win the election.
"We had the dirtiest, most evil, most experienced traitors in the political sphere
illegally using the entire US federal law enforcement apparatus to destroy him and cover it
up...the only people who could have been more criminal than that and caused him to
prevail is THE RUSSIANS!"
The Gateway Pundit reports that the news of the Facebook post comes amid heightened
scrutiny for the opposition research firm. According to Fox News reporter Jake Gibson,
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has called on a senior Justice Department attorney to look into
appointing a special counsel to investigate recently demoted official Bruce Ohr's contacts with
Fusion GPS.
"Sessions on calls for a special counsel to look into Sr DOJ Official Bruce Ohr, and wife
Nellie's contacts with Fusion GPS during the summer and fall of 2016: I've put a Senior
Attorney, with the resources he may need, to review cases in our office and make a
recommendation to me, if things aren't being pursued that need to be pursued, if cases may
need more resources to complete in a proper manner, and to recommend to me if the standards
for a special counsel are met, and the recommended one should be established," tweeted
Fox News reporter Jake Gibson on Tuesday.
Fox News ' James Rosen and Jake Gibson recently reported the wife of Justice
Department official Bruce G. Ohr worked for the opposition research firm during the 2016
presidential election.
Contacted by Fox News, investigators for the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence (HPSCI) confirmed that Nellie H. Ohr, wife of the demoted official, Bruce G.
Ohr, worked for the opposition research firm last year. The precise nature of Mrs. Ohr's
duties – including whether she worked on the dossier – remains unclear but a
review of her published works available online reveals Mrs. Ohr has written extensively on
Russia-related subjects. HPSCI staff confirmed to Fox News that she was paid by Fusion GPS
through the summer and fall of 2016.
In a statement to Fox News, a Justice Department spokesperson noted that
"It is unusual for anyone to wear two hats as he has done recently. This person is going
to go back to a single focus -- director of our organized crime and drug enforcement unit. As
you know, combatting transnational criminal organizations and drug trafficking is a top
priority for the Attorney General."
"... Steele's admission that his now infamous dossier (that has spun the US into complete Russia hysteria) is based on information that is not "verified" (in other words made up rumors), comes moments after Mary Jacoby, the wife of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, posted on Facebook about how 'Russiagate,' would not exist if it weren't for her husband. ..."
"... So why is this information not splashed across MSM is the rhetorical question. The damage is done with the intended smears. A fait accomplit, ..."
Ex-British spy behind Fusion GPS dossier admits it contains "Limited Intelligence". Former
British spy Christopher Steele, who was tasked with compiling the 'Trump dossier' for
opposition research firm Fusion GPS, admitted in court that the discredited document contains
"limited intelligence."
"
While Mr. Steele stated matter-of-factly in his dossier that collusion between Mr. Trump and
the Russian government took place, he called it only "possible" months later in court filings.
While he confidently referred to "trusted" sources inside the Kremlin, in court he referred to
the dossier's "limited intelligence." [ ]
In court filings this year, Mr. Steele doesn't sound as confident as his dossier. He
answered questions through his attorney in a libel complaint brought by a Russian entrepreneur,
Aleksej Gubarev. Mr. Steele has accused Mr. Gubarev of being pressured by Russian's FSB
intelligence service to take part in hacking against the Democratic Party.
In one answer, Mr. Steele refers to the intelligence he gathered as "limited." On the charge
of collusion by Mr. Trump and his campaign advisers, he now says there was only "possible
coordination."
"The contents of the December memorandum did not represent (and did not purport to
represent) verified facts, but were raw intelligence which had identified a range of
allegations that warranted investigation given their potential national security
implications," Steele wrote.
"Such intelligence was not actively sought; it was merely received."
Steele's admission that his now infamous dossier (that has spun the US into complete
Russia hysteria) is based on information that is not "verified" (in other words made up
rumors), comes moments after Mary Jacoby, the wife of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, posted
on Facebook about how 'Russiagate,' would not exist if it weren't for her husband.
Tablet Magazine reports
"In a Facebook post from June 24, 2017, that Tablet has seen in screenshots, Jacoby
claimed that her husband deserves the lion's share of credit for Russiagate. (She has not
replied to repeated requests for comment.)
"It's come to my attention that some people still don't realize what Glenn's role was in
exposing Putin's control of Donald Trump," Jacoby wrote. "Let's be clear. Glenn conducted the
investigation. Glenn hired Chris Steele. Chris Steele worked for Glenn."
This assertion is hardly a simple assertion of family pride; it goes directly to the
nature of what became known as the "Steele dossier," on which the Russiagate narrative is
founded.
This involved limited intelligence in more ways than one.
A ndré De Koning • 3 minutes ago
Limited IQ: meaning subnormal level of intelligence, bordering level "moron".
It was "received" by an agency with even more limited IQ as the document would have been
declared "not receivable" by anybody who can read the Daily Telegraph or other Murdoch "news"
papers.
Diagnosis of the US Intelligence Agencies is not so high all of a sudden if they can
manipulate (this where the IQ goes up a notch or two). If the DOJ has a slightly higher IQ or
reaches the normal level of IQ=100, one might be lucky.
Gano1 • 12 hours ago
Former Ambassador to Moscow Sir Andrew Wood was the go-between.
Guy • 14 hours ago
So why is this information not splashed across MSM is the rhetorical question. The
damage is done with the intended smears. A fait accomplit, so move on is the only answer
.
"... "I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that out," former CIA director John Brennan said of the possibility of Donald Trump firing special counsel Robert Mueller. "I would just hope that this is not going to be a partisan issue. That Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and something needs to be done for the good of the future. ..."
"... The American people, after all, elected Trump. Rod Rosenstein elected Mueller. ..."
"... A self-flattering interpretation by the puppeteers imagines Trump voters as Pap Finns resentful of the mere existence of the edumacated elites. Cultural tics surely explain part of this divide. But more so do frustrations with votes repeatedly resulting in policies unwanted by voters. Brennan encouraging employees of the executive branch to subvert the executive comes off as too analogous to the unelected continually sabotaging the will of the electorate that directly caused Trump's election. Trump's supporters certainly see it this way. This fight is an extension of the overall fight that colored the presidential election. ..."
Last year, the marionettes rebelled. Naturally, the Great Puppeteer Counter-revolt of
2017 followed.
"I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that
out," former CIA director John Brennan said of the possibility of Donald Trump firing special
counsel Robert Mueller. "I would just hope that this is not going to be a partisan issue. That
Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and
something needs to be done for the good of the future. "
Leaving aside the imprudence of the president firing the man investigating his campaign's
alleged ties to Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump certainly possesses the right
to dismiss Mueller. Unelected people who work for the man elected president do not possess the
right to thwart the legal directives of their boss.
The American people, after all, elected Trump. Rod Rosenstein elected Mueller.
A fine line exists between anonymous, unelected, unaccountable government officials
undermining the president's legal directives and such people working to overturn the results of
last year's election. One might argue the two as one in the same differing only in degree.
Did the Russians meddle in our electoral process in 2016 or do entrenched bureaucrats do so
on a constant basis? How one answers that question dictates one's response to this current
controversy.
November's results, one might think, would have sparked epiphanies. Americans voted for a
populist outsider to, in his words, "drain the swamp." Brennan's words indicate that the swamp
thrives six months after inauguration. The election neither hastened the drain nor chastened
the creatures from the swamp. As the late, great Stan Evans oft reflected, people go to
Washington imagining it a swamp only to soon regard it as a hot tub. Who wants to vacate a hot
tub?
A self-flattering interpretation by the puppeteers imagines Trump voters as Pap Finns
resentful of the mere existence of the edumacated elites. Cultural tics surely explain part of
this divide. But more so do frustrations with votes repeatedly resulting in policies unwanted
by voters. Brennan encouraging employees of the executive branch to subvert the executive comes
off as too analogous to the unelected continually sabotaging the will of the electorate that
directly caused Trump's election. Trump's supporters certainly see it this way. This fight is
an extension of the overall fight that colored the presidential election.
Consider any massive change in America over the last half century or so. The demographic sea
change in the United States occurred in large part in spite, not because, of U.S. immigration
laws. Courts, not the people, determined the legal status of abortion, gay marriage, school
prayer, and much else. On important questions regarding the environment, the internet, and
health care unelected bureaucrats make the rules under which we live. Such policy
change exposes the metachange of process change that allows unelected people to
impose their will on massive numbers of people. Tolerating the hijacking of policy soon leads
to empowered hijackers thinking they can hijack the presidency.
The Constitution decrees, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government." Do the deep-state puppeteers imagine that this principle does
not apply to Washington?
Donald Trump attempts to bring down the curtain on the long-running Puppet Show on the
Potomac. Naturally, Charlie McCarthy finds this more liberating than Edgar Bergen
The House Intelligence Committee has asked the former CEO of President Donald Trump's 2016
presidential campaign, Stephen K. Bannon, to appear before them for an interview as part of
their ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Bannon received a letter this week from the committee. In the letter, the committee requests
that he appear in early January, according to Bloomberg:
"The invitation, which didn't come in the form of a subpoena compelling them to testify,
was for a "voluntary interview" in the committee's offices, which means it would be held
behind closed doors, the official said."
Former Trump presidential campaign manager Corey Lewandowski also received a letter
requesting he speak with the committee in January.
The report further reveals that the letters to Bannon and Lewandowski don't specify reasons
for the interview beyond relation to the committee's ongoing investigation into any Russian
meddling in the 2016 election. At the time of the report, the committee had not received
responses from either Bannon or Lewandowski.
After opposing escalation with Russia over Ukraine as a candidate, President Trump
made the surprising decision to begin supplying Ukraine with lethal arms this week. The neocons
are pleased but urge him to allow even more weapons. What's the reason for the flip-flop? Join
today's Liberty Report for our take...
Other changes are already in the works. On a conference call on Wednesday, it was announced
that James A. Baker, the F.B.I. general counsel who was seen as an ally of Mr. Comey's, would
step down from that post, although he will remain at the bureau. Mr. Baker provided counsel to
Mr. Comey during the investigation into Mrs. Clinton's emails.
"... Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common good ..."
"... Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare. ..."
Gessen felt
that the Russiagate gambit would flop, given a lack of smoking-gun evidence and sufficient
public interest, particularly among Republicans.
Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that
ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common
good : racism, voter suppression (which may well have
elected Trump , by the way), health care, plutocracy, police- and prison-state-ism,
immigrant rights, economic exploitation and inequality, sexism and environmental ruination --
you know, stuff like that.
Some of the politically engaged populace noticed the problem early on. According to the
Washington political journal The Hill , last
summer ,
Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding
message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the
Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried
about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and
healthcare.
Here we are now, half a year later, careening into a dystopian holiday season. With his
epically low approval rating of 32 percent
, the orange-tinted bad grandpa in the Oval Office has won a viciously regressive tax bill that
is widely rejected by the populace. The bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress
whose current
approval rating stands at 13 percent. It is a major legislative victory for the
Republicans, a party whose approval rating fell to an all-time
low of 29 percent at the end of September -- a party that tried to send a child molester to
the U.S. Senate.
"... Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., to threaten contempt-of-Congress citations against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray. ..."
"... "It's hard to know who's telling us the truth," said one House investigator after McCabe's questioning. ..."
"... Investigators say McCabe recounted to the panel how hard the FBI had worked to verify the contents of the anti-Trump "dossier" and stood by its credibility. But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. Beyond that, investigators said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had verified the dossier's allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly held in Moscow. ..."
"... The sources said that when asked when he learned that the dossier had been funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, McCabe claimed he could not recall – despite the reported existence of documents with McCabe's own signature on them establishing his knowledge of the dossier's financing and provenance. ..."
"... Ohr will retain his OCDETF title but was stripped of his higher post and ousted from his office on the fourth floor of "Main Justice." Department officials confirmed that Ohr had withheld from superiors his secret meetings in 2016 with Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the dossier with input from Russian sources; and with Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired Steele with funds supplied by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. ..."
"... Subsequently, Fox News disclosed that Ohr's wife Nellie, an academic expert on Russia, had worked for Fusion GPS through the summer and fall of 2016. ..."
"... The Nunes panel has spent much of this year investigating whether DOJ, under then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, used the dossier to justify a foreign surveillance warrant against Page, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... Lets face it, the FBI officials and the DOJ jumped at the chance to investigate the Trump campaign and it was a combined effort between, McCabe, Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr, Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page and the Lord only knows how many more and they used a dosser which they hardly verified and they used a dossier that come through the DNC to obtain warrants from the FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign and at the end they come up empty and they are still coming up empty. ..."
"... The truth has already been found. All you need is the email between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. In that email it say's "we need an insurance policy". Look at the word "we". Now we know they Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page where in McCabe's office discussing the Trump campaign and the email between Lisa and Peter developed from that meeting ..."
Congressional investigators tell Fox News that Tuesday's seven-hour interrogation of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe contained
numerous conflicts with the testimony of previous witnesses, prompting the Republican majority staff of the House Intelligence Committee
to decide to issue fresh subpoenas next week on Justice Department and FBI personnel.
While HPSCI staff would not confirm who will be summoned for testimony, all indications point to demoted DOJ official Bruce G.
Ohr and FBI General Counsel James A. Baker, who accompanied McCabe, along with other lawyers, to Tuesday's HPSCI session.
The issuance of a subpoena against the Justice Department's top lawyer could provoke a new constitutional clash between the two
branches, even worse than the months-long tug of war over documents and witnesses that has already led House Speaker Paul Ryan to
accuse DOJ and FBI of "stonewalling" and HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., to threaten contempt-of-Congress citations against
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray.
"It's hard to know who's telling us the truth," said one House investigator after McCabe's questioning.
Fox News is told that several lawmakers participated in the questioning of McCabe, led chiefly by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
Sources close to the investigation say that McCabe was a "friendly witness" to the Democrats in the room, who are said to have
pressed the deputy director, without success, to help them build a case against President Trump for obstruction of justice in the
Russia-collusion probe. "If he could have, he would have," said one participant in the questioning.
Investigators say McCabe recounted to the panel how hard the FBI had worked to verify the contents of the anti-Trump "dossier"
and stood by its credibility. But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the
sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. Beyond that, investigators
said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had verified the dossier's allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly
held in Moscow.
The sources said that when asked when he learned that the dossier had been funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee, McCabe claimed he could not recall – despite the reported existence of documents with McCabe's own
signature on them establishing his knowledge of the dossier's financing and provenance.
The decision by HPSCI staff to subpoena Ohr comes as he is set to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is conducting
its own probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Until earlier this month, when Fox News began investigating him, Ohr held two titles at DOJ: associate deputy attorney general,
a post that placed him four doors down from his boss, Rosenstein; and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces
(OCDETF), a program described by the department as "the centerpiece of the attorney general's drug strategy."
Ohr will retain his OCDETF title but was stripped of his higher post and ousted from his office on the fourth floor of "Main
Justice." Department officials confirmed that Ohr had withheld from superiors his secret meetings in 2016 with Christopher Steele,
the former British spy who authored the dossier with input from Russian sources; and with Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS,
the opposition research firm that hired Steele with funds supplied by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Subsequently, Fox News disclosed that Ohr's wife Nellie, an academic expert on Russia, had worked for Fusion GPS through the
summer and fall of 2016.
Former FBI Director James Comey, testifying before the House in March, described the dossier as a compendium of "salacious and
unverified" allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump and his associates. The Nunes panel has spent much of this year investigating
whether DOJ, under then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, used the dossier to justify a foreign surveillance warrant against Page,
a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign.
DOJ and FBI say they have cooperated extensively with Nunes and his team, including the provision of several hundred pages of
classified documents relating to the dossier. The DOJ has also made McCabe available to the House Judiciary Committee for a closed-door
interview on Thursday.
The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment for this report.
James Rosen joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 1999 and is the network's chief Washington correspondent. Jake Gibson is a
producer working at the Fox News Washington bureau who covers politics, law enforcement and intelligence issues.
Nam
I cannot find out much about the hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee
had with Andrew McCabe but I have managed to find this. One, McCabe's testimony is not matching up with testimony from others
who have been questioned so now the Judiciary Committee has issued a new set of subpoenas . The second thing I found out is when
McCabe was asked when was it that he discovered that the dosser had come from the DNC, he said he could not recall, even though
the committee has documents with McCabe's signature on them that shows that he McCabe did know it come from the DNC and was paid
for by the Clinton campaign.
Also they found out that the FBI only verified one thing in the dosser before they jumped on it and
used it. I also found out during the questioning of McCabe by the Democrats on the committee that they the Democrats busted their
chops trying to tie Trump to the Russians but they come up empty. I also know that Bruce Ohr is going to get a new round of questioning
by the Judiciary Committee.
Lets face it, the FBI officials and the DOJ jumped at the chance to investigate the Trump campaign
and it was a combined effort between, McCabe, Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr, Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page and the Lord
only knows how many more and they used a dosser which they hardly verified and they used a dossier that come through the DNC to
obtain warrants from the FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign and at the end they come up empty and they are still coming up
empty.
ytubepuppy
I heard a rumor that McCabe was grilled for 7½ hours.
BrianrrInfluencer
Congress will NEVER get the truth from these professional crooks and liars. if there is evidence just charge them.
NowelhillLeader1d
Democrats can't seem to ever remember anything, yet they keep begging to be in power. I don't remember what for.
freedomtomarryLeaderNowelhill
Democrats are the majority and we have won six of the last seven elections popular vote. Without your electoral college handicap,
the GOP doesn't stand a chance of winning the White House. Never forget that Trump got second place, and that was only after he paid
Russians to hack voting systems in 21 states.
Nam -> MelGlass
The truth has already been found. All you need is the email between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. In that email it say's "we
need an insurance policy". Look at the word "we". Now we know they Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page where in McCabe's
office discussing the Trump campaign and the email between Lisa and Peter developed from that meeting.
The word "we" says it is
organized and we know they were plotting. They needed an insurance police just in case. That is criminal. So we have "we" which
constitutes organized and we have criminal. That has RICO written all over it. Off to the dungeons with them.
The second point we want to make, relates to Mueller himself who–far from being a "stand-up fellow" with a spotless record, and
an unshakable commitment to principle–is not the exemplar people seem to think he is. In fact, his personal integrity and credibility
are greatly in doubt. Here's a little background on Mueller from former-FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley who was named Time's Person
of the Year in 2002:
"Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law
improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens,
and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."
Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos
mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial" or "war presidency" powers, and
requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state of emergency."
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were
simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all"
surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers
who revealed these illegalities
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak
out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11." ("Comey and Mueller: Russia-gate's Mythical
Heroes", Colleen Rowley, Counterpunch)
Illegal spying on American citizens? Infiltration of nonviolent anti-war groups? Martial law? Torture??
This is NOT how Mueller is portrayed in the media, is it?
The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at
all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and
public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning
to unravel.
Please, let Mueller stay to become a poster boy for borgistas. With each day, the incompetence of the CIA' and FBI' brass has
been revealing with the greater and greater clarity. They have sold out the US citizenry for personal gains.
Rod Rosenstein' role in particular should be well investigated so that his name becomes tightly connected to the "dossier" and
all its racy tales.
" there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been
probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to
believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that
should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments.
Even so, there's no evidence that a crime has been committed. None."
-- Anti-Consttutonal activity by Rod Rosenstein = Treason.
You mean, we should have better read the New Times and WaPo instead, in order to get the "gigantic scope of the investigation?"
-- Thank you very much. But these ziocons' nests have not provided any hard facts related to the main goal of this particular
investigation. However, a true and immense value of the investigation is the exposure of the incompetence of and political manipulations
by the FBI deciders -- as well as the sausage making under Clinton leadership in the DNC kitchen.
"It should have never been started. Trump and his administration screwed themselves."
– Disagree.
The investigation is the best thing for the US. It has exposed traitors (leakers) in the US government, the corruption of the
FBI (which provided the leaks and did not investigate the allegedly hacked DNC computers and white-washed Clinton's criminal negligence),
and the spectacular incompetence of the DNC-FBI deciders (the cooperation with foreigners in order to derail the governance of
the US by the elected POTUS). Cannot wait to hear more about Awan affair (the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity under the
watch of the current FBI brass) and about the investigation of Seth Rich murder.
For those familiar with Mueller, the blunt-force approach taken toward the GSA is something of a signature of Mueller and
his heavy-handed associates like Andrew Weissmann. As I have previously written, Mueller has a controversial record in attacking
attorney-client privilege as well as harsh tactics against targets. As a U.S. attorney, he was accused of bugging an attorney-client
conversation, and as special counsel he forced (with the approval of a federal judge) the attorney of Paul Manafort to become
a witness against her own client. Weissmann's record is even more controversial, including major reversals in past prosecutions
for exceeding the scope of the criminal code or questionable ethical conduct.
Nor will any be produced either. If Trump were to drop dead tomorrow or, alternatively, decide to pack it in and go back to
running hotels, Mueller's Star Chamber Committee would close down the day after. Mueller is a tool of The Powers That Be. And
they want Trump OUT -- no matter what the cost.
This is American Maydan -- a plot to depose legitimate (albeit widely hated) government. History repeats. And Mueller is a part
of the game to depose Trump for sure. As he is is supported by by powerful anti-Trump forces Trump can't simply fire him without risk
of provoking political crisis. He is in Yanukovich position now and need to negotiate from the position of weakness, not strength.
Now it looks more and more plausible that Steele dossier was a joint operation of CIA and MI6 to discredit Trump: an insurance as
Peter Strzok told his paramour.
The desperation of U.S. liberals to find some truth in the claims that Donald Trump's campaign staff colluded with Russian state
actors is approaching infinity.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee all but confirms that the only 'proof' the FBI
and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have of collusion is the discredited "Trump Dossier."
This dossier was compiled by Christopher Steele and sold to the Clinton Campaign as opposition research by Fusion GPS. McCabe
stonewalled the HIC on this matter but couldn't point to anything in the dossier that the FBI verified to be true other than publicly-known
knowledge of Carter Page visiting Moscow in 2016.
And the last time I checked (as least for now) visiting Moscow is not a crime.
Neither is what Michael Flynn did a crime either, but let's not bring facts in to dash the hope of the terminally insane.
McCabe has to stonewall on this issue
otherwise he and the rest of the FBI are guilty of acting on behalf of Hillary Clinton to assist in spying on her political opponent.
Because that's where all of this leads if people would take their ideological blinders off for five seconds and look at what we actually
know as opposed to what we 'just know to be true.'
Everyone involved in this sordid affair should be tried for espionage and treason.
Those prominent liberals running around protesting the mere thought of Donald Trump shutting down the Mueller investigation to
'protect the sanctity of our elections' are a bunch of simpering morons.
And I'm sick to death of the blatant and rank hypocrisy when it comes to election fraud in this country.
For this reason alone, the Mueller investigation should be shut down.
This is the session that happened just before appointment of the Special prosecutor. So it was a interesting moment which relael
the growd work for the appointment of the Special prosecutor and the extent US Congress was involved in this activity. So a part
of Congress was also active in the plot to depose Trump.
It is also interesting due to the fact that McCabe, the person at the center of Steele dossier controversy at FBI
was present. As you can see everybody try to hype Russian threat for their own political gain. And McCabe clearly played into
inflaming this paranoia further with his answers.
Also interesting is that while answering "yes" about Russian interference in election was the most safe answer to give, but the
real question is not about Russian interference per se, but whether the level of Russian interference exceeded in scope British interference
(criminal story with Stele dossier and wiretapping of Trump tower), Israel (via Israel lobbyists, NGOs, Kushner and Trump donors)
and Saudi interference (donations to Clinton campaign) to name a few. If the answer is "no", then this is clearly a witch hunt.
Russia is just another neoliberal state, so why it can be a threat to the US neoliberalism unclear. It does resist enlargement of
the US neoliberal empire as it has its own geopolitical interests in former USSR space. How would the US react if Russia helped
to depose legitimate government in Mexico and started to supply arms in order to get back California, Texas and Florida which new government
would consider were occupied by the the USA illegally? the fact that Russia does not want ot be Washington vassal is not illegal. And
there is nothing criminal in attempts to resist the spread of the US neoliberal empire on xUSSR space.
Notable quotes:
"... RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations? ..."
"... MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution. ..."
"... WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. ..."
"... Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a sembl ..."
"... At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks. ..."
"... MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year. ..."
"... MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day. ..."
"... MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time. ..."
"... Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge? ..."
"... COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made? ..."
"... MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas. ..."
"... LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward? ..."
"... MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely. ..."
"... LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey? ..."
"... MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs? ..."
"... STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks. ..."
"... HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources? ..."
"... MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced. ..."
"... MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that ..."
"... POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign intelligence organization. ..."
SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: Intelligence community assessment accurately characterized the extent of Russian activities in the 2016
election and its conclusion that Russian intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking and leaking of information and using
misinformation to influence our elections? Simple yes or no would suffice.
ROBERT CARDILLO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: I do. Yes, sir.
STEWART: Yes, Senator.
ROGERS: Yes I do.
DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE : Yes I do.
MIKE POMPEO, DIRECTOR, CIA: Yes.
MCCABE: Yes.
WARNER: And I guess the presumption there -- or the next presumption, I won't even ask this question is consequently that committee
assess -- or that community assessment was unanimous and is not a piece of fake news or evidence of some other individual or nation
state other than Russia. So I appreciate that again for the record.
I warned you Mr. McCabe I was going to have to get you on the record as well on this. Mr. McCabe for as long as you are Acting
FBI Director do you commit to informing this committee of any effort to interfere with the FBI's ongoing investigation into links
between Russia and the Trump campaign?
MCCABE: I absolutely do.
WARNER: Thank you so much for that. I think in light of what's happened in the last 48 hours it's critically important that we
have that assurance and I hope you'll relay, at least from me to the extraordinary people that work at the FBI that this committee
supports them, supports their efforts, support their professionalism and supports their independence.
MCCABE: I will sir, thank you.
WARNER: In light of the fact that we just saw French elections where it felt like deja vu all over again in terms of the release
of a series of e-mails against Mr. Macron days before the election and the fact that this committee continues to investigate the
type of tactics that Russia has used.
Where do we stand, as a country, of preparation to make sure this doesn't happen again in 2018 and 2020 -- where have we moved
in terms of collaboration with state voting -- voter files, in terms of working more with the tech community, particularly the platform
-- platform entities in terms of how we can better assure real news versus fake news, is there some general sense -- Director Coats
I know you've only been in the job for a short period of time -- of how we're going to have a strategic effort? Because while it
was Russia in 2016 other nation states could -- you know -- launch similar type assaults.
COATS: Well, we are -- we will continue to use all the assets that we have in terms of collection and analysis relative to what
the influence has been and potentially could be in future. Russians have spread this across the globe -- interestingly enough I met
with the Prime Minister of Montenegro the latest nation to join NATO, the number 29 nation, what was the main topic?
Russian interference in their political system. And so it does -- it sweeps across Europe and other places. It's clear though,
the Russians have upped their game using social media and other opportunities that we -- in ways that we haven't seen before. So
it's a great threat to our -- our democratic process and our job here is to provide the best intelligence we can to the policy makers
to -- as they develop a strategy in terms of how to best reflect a response to this.
WARNER: Well one of the things I'm concerned about is, we've all expressed this concern but since this doesn't fall neatly into
any particular agency's jurisdiction you know, who's -- who's taking the point on interacting with the platform companies like the
Google, Facebook and Twitter, who's taking the point in terms of interacting DHS image in terms of state boards of election? How
are we trying to ensure that our systems more secure, and if we can get a brief answer on that because I got one last question for
Admiral Rogers.
COATS: Well, I think the -- the obviously, our office tasks and takes the point, but there's contribution from agencies across
the I.C. We will -- I've asked Director Pompeo to address that and others that might want to address that also. But each of us --
each of the agencies to the extent that they can and have the capacity whether its NSA though SIGINT, whether it's NSA through human
or other sources will provide information to us that we want to use as a basis to provide to our -- to our policymakers.
Relative to a grand strategy, I am not aware right now of any -- I think we're still assessing the impact. We have not put a grand
strategy together, which would not be our purview, we would provide the basis of intelligence that would then be the foundation for
what that strategy would be.
WARNER: My hope -- my hope would be that we need to be proactive in this. We don't want to be sitting here kind of looking back
at it after 2018 election cycle. Last question, very briefly, Admiral Rogers do you have any doubt that the Russians were behind
the intervention in the French elections?
ROGERS: I -- let me phrase it this way, we are aware of some Russian activity directed against the Russian -- excuse me, directed
against the French election process. As I previously said before Congress earlier this week, we in fact reached out to our French
counterparts to say, we have become aware of this activity, we want to make you aware, what are you seeing?
I'm not in a position to have looked at the breadth of the French infrastructure. So I'm -- I'm not really in a position to make
a whole simple declaratory statement.
WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BURR: Senator Rubio?
RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think
the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted
any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations?
MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any
decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women
of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution.
RUBIO: And this is for all the members of the committee, as has been widely reported, and people know this, Kaspersky Lab software
is used by not hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans. To each of our witnesses I would just ask, would any of you be comfortable
with the Kaspersky Lab software on your computers?
COATS: A resounding no, from me.
POMPEO: No.
MCCABE: No, Senator.
ROGERS: No, sir.
STEWART: No, Senator.
CARDILLO: No, sir.
... ... ...
POMPEO: I'll -- I'll let Mr. McCabe make a comment as well, but yes, of course. Frankly, this is consistent with what -- right,
this is the -- the -- the attempt to interfere in United States is not limited to Russia. The Cubans have deep ties, it is in their
deepest tradition to take American visitors and do their best influence of the way that is in adverse to U.S. interests.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. Fully agree, we share your concerns about that issue.
RUBIO: And my final question is on -- all this focus on Russia and what's happened in the past is that the opinion of all of you
-- or those of -- you certainly all have insight on this. That even as we focus on 2016 and the efforts leading up to that election,
efforts to influence policy making here in the United States vis-a-vis the Russian interests are ongoing that the Russians continue
to use active measures; even at this moment, even on this day.
To try, through the use of multiple different ways, to influence the political debate and the decisions made in American politics;
particularly as they pertain to Russia's interests around the world. In essence, these active measures is an ongoing threat, not
simply something that happened in the past.
MCCABE: Yes, sir, that's right.
POMPEO: Senator, it's right. In some sense, though, we've got to put it in context, this has been going on for a long time. There's
-- there's nothing new. Only the cost has been lessened, the cost of doing it.
COATS: I -- I would just add that the use of cyber and social media has significantly increased the impact and the capabilities
that -- obviously this has been done for years and years. Even decades. But the ability they have to -- to use the interconnectedness
and -- and all the -- all that that provides, that didn't provide before I -- they literally upped their game to the point where
it's having a significant impact.
ROGERS: From my perspective I would just highlight cyber is enabling them to access information in massive quantities that weren't
quite obtainable to the same level previously and that's just another tool in their attempt to acquire information, misuse of that
information, manipulation, outright lies, inaccuracies at time.
But other times, actually dumping raw data which is -- as we also saw during this last presidential election cycle for us.
... ... ...
COATS: I can't speak to how many agents of -- of the U.S. government are as cognizant as perhaps we should be but I certainly
think that, given China's aggressive approach relative to information gathering and -- and all the things that you mentioned merits
a -- a review of CFIUS in terms of whether or not it is -- needs to have some changes or innovations to -- to address the aggressive
-- aggressive Chinese actions not just against or companies, but across the world.
They -- they clearly have a strategy through their investments, they've started a major investment bank -- you name a park of
the world Chinese probably are -- are there looking to put investments in. We've seen the situation in Djibouti where they're also
adding military capability to their investment, strategic area for -- on the Horn of Africa there that -- that you wouldn't necessarily
expect. But they're active in Africa, Northern Africa, they're active across the world.
Their one belt, one road process opens -- opens their trade and -- and what other interest they have to the Indian Ocean in --
and a different way to address nations that they've had difficulty connecting with. So it's a -- it's clearly an issue that we ought
to take a look at.
... ... ...
WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is
wrong to anyone with a semblance of ethics. Director Comey should be here this morning testifying to the American people
about where the investigation he's been running stands.
At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates
I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk
in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians
to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks.
So the question is not whether Donald Trump actively encouraged the Russians and WikiLeaks to attack our democracy, he did; that
is an established fact. The only question is whether he or someone associated with him coordinated with the Russians.
Now, Mr. McCabe, the president's letter to Director Comey asserted that on three separate occasions the director informed him
that he was not under investigations. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigations? Yes
or no?
MCCABE: Sir, I'm not going to comment on any conversations that the director may have had with the president...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: I didn't ask that. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigation? That's not about
conversations, that's yes or no answer.
MCCABE: As you know, Senator. We typically do not answer that question. I will not comment on whether or not the director and
the president of the United States had that conversation.
WYDEN: Will you refrain from these kinds of alleged updates to the president or anyone else in the White House on the status of
the investigation?
MCCABE: I will.
WYDEN: Thank you.
Director Pompeo, one of the few key unanswered questions is why the president didn't fire Michael Flynn after Acting Attorney
General Yates warned the White House that he could be blackmailed by the Russians. Director Pompeo, did you know about the acting
attorney general's warnings to the White House or were you aware of the concerns behind the warning?
POMPEO: I -- I don't have any comment on that.
WYDEN: Well, were you aware of the concerns behind the warning? I mean, this is a global threat. This is a global threat question,
this is a global threat hearing. Were you...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: Tell me...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: Were you aware?
POMPEO: Senator, tell me what global threat it is you're concerned with, please. I'm not sure I understand the question.
WYDEN: Well, the possibility of blackmail. I mean, blackmail by a influential military official, that has real ramifications for
the global threat. So this is not about a policy implication, this is about the national security advisor being vulnerable to blackmail
by the Russians. And the American people deserve to know whether in these extraordinary circumstances the CIA kept them safe.
POMPEO: Yes, sir, the CIA's kept America safe. And...
WYDEN: So...
POMPEO: And the people at the Central Intelligence Agency are committed to that and will remain committed to that. And we will...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... do that in the face of...
WYDEN: You won't answer the question...
POMPEO: We will do that in the face of political challenges that come from any direction, Senator.
WYDEN: But, you will not answer the question of whether or not you were aware of the concerns behind the Yates warning.
POMPEO: Sir, I don't know exactly what you're referring to with the Yates warning, I -- I -- I wasn't part of any of those conversations.
I -- I... (CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: The Yates warning was...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... I have no first hand information with respect to the warning that was given.
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: She didn't make that warning to me. I -- I can't -- I can't answer that question, Senator...
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: ... as much as I would like to.
WYDEN: OK.
Director Coats, how concerned are you that a Russian government oil company, run by a Putin crony could end up owning a significant
percentage of U.S. oil refining capacity and what are you advising the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States about
this?
COATS: I don't have specific information relative to that. I think that's something that potentially, we could provide intelligence
on in terms of what this -- what situation might be, but...
WYDEN: I'd like you to furnace that in writing. Let me see if I can get one other question in, there have been mountains of press
stories with allegations about financial connections between Russia and Trump and his associates. The matters are directly relevant
to the FBI and my question is, when it comes to illicit Russian money and in particular, it's potential to be laundered on its way
to the United States, what should the committee be most concerned about?
We hear stories about Deutsche Bank, Bank of Cypress, Shell companies in Moldova, the British Virgin Islands. I'd like to get
your sense because I'm over my time. Director McCabe, what you we most -- be most concerned about with respect to illicit Russian
money and its potential to be laundered on its way the United States?
MCCABE: Certainly sir. So as you know, I am not in the position to be able to speak about specific investigations and certainly
not in this setting. However, I will confirm for you that those are issues that concern us greatly.
They have traditionally and they do even more so today, as it becomes easier to conceal the origin and the -- and the track and
the destination of purpose of illicit money flows, as the exchange of information becomes more clouded in encryption and then more
obtuse, it becomes harder and harder to get to the bottom of those investigations. That would shed light on those issues.
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator Risch?
RISCH: Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I -- the purpose of this hearing as the chairman expressed is to give the American people
some insight into what we all do, which they don't see pretty much at all. And so I think what I want to do is I want to make an
observation and then I want to get your take on it, anybody who wants to volunteer. And I'm going to start with you Director Coats,
to volunteer.
My -- I have been -- I've been on this committee all the time I've been here in the Senate and all through the last administration.
And I have been greatly impressed by the current administrations hitting the ground running during the first hundred days, as far
as their engagement on intelligence matters and their engagement with foreign countries. The national media here is focused on domestic
issues which is of great interest to the American people be it healthcare, be it personnel issues in the government.
And they don't -- the -- the media isn't as focused on this administrations fast, and in my judgment, robust engagement with the
intelligence communities around the world and with other governments. And my impression is that it's good and it is aggressive. And
I want -- I'd like you're -- I'd like your impression of where we're going. Almost all of you had real engagement in the last administration
and all the administrations are different. So Director Coats, you want to take that on to start with?
COATS: I'd be happy to start with that, I think most presidents that come into office come with an agenda in mind in terms of
what issues they'd like to pursue, many of them issues that effect -- domestic issues that affect infrastructure and education and
a number of things only to find that this is dangerous world, that the United States -- that the threats that exist out there need
to be -- be given attention to.
This president, who I think the perception was not interested in that, I think Director Pompeo and I can certify the fact that
we have spent far more hours in the Oval Office than we anticipated. The president is a voracious consumer of information and asking
questions and asking us to provide intelligence. I -- we are both part of a process run through the national security council, General
McMaster, all through the deputy's committees and the principal's committees consuming hours and hours of time looking at the threats,
how do we address those threats, what is the intelligence that tells us -- that informs the policy makers in terms of how they put
a strategy in place.
And so what I initially thought would be a one or two time a week, 10 to 15 minute quick brief, has turned into an everyday, sometimes
exceeding 45 minutes to an hour or more just in briefing the president. We have -- I have brought along several of our directors
to come and show the president what their agencies do and how important it is the info -- that the information they provide how that
-- for the basis of making policy decisions.
I'd like to turn to my CIA colleague to get -- let him give you, and others, to give you their impression.
RISCH: I appreciate that. We're almost out of time but I did -- Director Pompeo you kind of sit in the same spot we all sit in
through the last several years and I kind of like your observations along the line of Director Coats, what you feel about the matter?
POMPEO: Yeah, I think Director Coats had it right. He and I spend time with the president everyday, briefing him with the most
urgent intelligence matters that are presented to us as -- in our roles. He asks good, hard questions. Make us go make sure we're
doing our work in the right way.
Second, you asked about engagement in the world. This administration has reentered the battle space in places the administration
-- the previous administration was completely absent. You all travel some too...
RISCH: Yes.
POMPEO: ... you will hear that when you go travel. I've now taken two trips to places and they welcome American leadership. They're
not looking for American soldiers, they're not looking for American boots on the ground, they're looking for American leadership
around the globe and this president has reentered that space in a way that I think will serve America's interest very well.
RISCH: Yeah I -- I couldn't agree more and we -- we deal with them not only overseas but they come here, as you know, regularly.
POMPEO: Yes sir.
RISCH: And the fact that the president has pulled the trigger twice as he has in -- in the first 100 days and -- and done it in
a fashion that didn't start a world war and -- and was watched by both our friends and our enemies has made a significant and a huge
difference as far as our standing in the world. My time's up. Thank you very much Mr. Chair.
WARNER: Thank you Senator.
Senator Heinrich.
HEINRICH: Director McCabe you -- you obviously have several decades of law enforcement experience, is it -- is it your experience
that people who are innocent of wrong doing typically need to be reassured that they're not the subject of an investigation?
MCCABE: No sir.
HEINRICH: And I ask that because I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the dismissal letter from -- earlier this week from
the president where he writes, "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation."
And I'm still trying to figure out why that would even make it into a dismissal letter. But let me go to something a little more
direct.
Director, has anyone in the White House spoken to you directly about the Russia investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
HEINRICH: Let me -- when -- when did you last meet with the president, Director McCabe?
MCCABE: I don't think I -- I'm in...
HEINRICH: Was it earlier this week?
MCCABE: ... the position to comment on that. I have met with the president this week, but I really don't want to go into the details
of that.
HEINRICH: OK. But Russia did not come up?
MCCABE: That's correct, it did not.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you. We've heard in the news that -- that -- claims that Director Comey had -- had lost the confidence of
rank and file FBI employees. You've been there for 21 years, in your opinion is it accurate that the rank and file no longer supported
Director Comey?
MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the
moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running
the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year.
MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable
abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell
you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day.
We are a large organization, we are 36,500 people across this country, across this globe. We have a diversity of opinions about
many things, but I can confidently tell you that the majority -- the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection
to Director Comey.
HEINRICH: Thank you for your candor. Do you feel like you have the adequate resources for the existing investigations that the
-- that the bureau is invested in right now to -- to follow them wherever they may lead?
MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and
I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence
threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time.
HEINRICH: Sure.
MCCABE: But in terms of that investigation, sir, I can -- I can assure you we are covered.
HEINRICH: Thank you.
Director Coats, welcome back. Would you agree that it is a national security risk to provide classified information to an individual
who has been compromised by a foreign government as a broad matter.
COATS: As a broad matter, yes.
HEINRICH: If the attorney general came to you and said one of your employees was compromised what -- what sort of action would
you take?
COATS: I would take the action as prescribed in our procedures relative to how we report this ad how it's -- how it is processed.
I mean, it's a serious -- serious issue Our -- our -- I would be consulting with our legal counsel and consulting with our inspector
general and others as to how -- how best to proceed with this, but obviously we will take action.
HEINRICH: Would -- would one of the options be dismissal, obviously?
COATS: Very potentially could be dismissal, yes.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you Director.
BURR: Senator Collins?
COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman.
Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election
last fall still in charge?
MCCABE: I mean we have many agents involved in the investigation at many levels so I'm not who you're referring to.
COLLINS: The lead agent overseeing the investigation.
MCCABE: Certainly, almost all of the agents involved in the investigation are still in their positions.
COLLINS: So has there been any curtailment of the FBI's activities in this important investigation since Director Comey was fired?
MCCABE: Ma'am, we don't curtail our activities. As you know, has the -- are people experiencing questions and are reacting to
the developments this week? Absolutely.
COLLINS: Does that get in the way of our ability to pursue this or any other investigation?
MCCABE: No ma'am, we continue to focus on our mission and get that job done.
COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday
indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into
Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made?
MCCABE: I cannot confirm that request was made. As you know ma'am, when we need resources, we make those requests here. So I --
I don't -- I'm not aware of that request and it's not consistent with my understanding of how we request additional resources.
That said, we don't typically request resources for an individual case. And as I mentioned, I strongly believe that the Russian
investigation is adequately resourced. COLLINS: You've also been asked a question about target letters. Now, it's my understanding
that when an individual is the target of an investigation, at some point, a letter is sent out notifying a individual that he is
a target, is that correct?
MCCABE: No ma'am, I -- I don't believe that's correct.
COLLINS: OK. So before there is going to be an indictment, there is not a target letter sent out by the Justice Department?
MCCABE: Not that I'm aware of.
COLLINS: OK that's contrary to my -- my understanding, but let me ask you the reverse.
MCCABE: Again, I'm looking at it from the perspective of the investigators. So that's not part of our normal case investigative
practice.
COLLINS: That would be the Justice Department, though. The Justice Department...
MCCABE: I see, I see...
COLLINS: I'm -- I'm asking you, isn't it standard practice when someone is the target of an investigation and is perhaps on the
verge of being indicted that the Justice Department sends that individual what is known as a target letter?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am I'm going have to defer that question to the Department of Justice.
COLLINS: Well, let me ask you the -- the flip side of that and perhaps you don't know the answer to this question but is it standard
practice for the FBI to inform someone that they are not a target of an investigation?
MCCABE: It is not.
COLLINS: So it would be unusual and not standard practice for there -- it -- for there to have been a notification from the FBI
director to President Trump or anyone else involved in this investigation, informing him or her that that individual I not a target,
is that correct?
MCCABE: Again ma'am, I'm not going to comment on what Director Comey may or may not have done.
COLLINS: I -- I'm not asking you to comment on the facts of the case, I'm just trying to figure out what's standard practice and
what's not.
MCCABE: Yes ma'am. I'm not aware of that being a standard practice.
COLLINS: Admiral Rogers, I want to follow up on Senator Warner's question to you about the attempted interference in the French...
ROGERS: French.
COLLINS: ... election. Some researchers, including the cyber intelligence firm Flashpoint claim that APT28 is the group that was
behind the stealing of the -- and the leaking of the information about the president elect of France, the FBI and DHS have publicly
tied APT28 to Russian intelligence services in the joint analysis report last year after the group's involvement in stealing data
that was leaked in the run up to the U.S. elections in November.
Is the I.C. in a position to attribute the stealing and the leaking that took place prior to the French election to be the result
of activities by this group, which is linked to Russian cyber activity?
ROGERS: Again ma'am, right now I don't think I have a complete picture of all the activity associated with France but as I have
said publicly, both today and previously, we are aware of specific Russian activity directed against the French election cycle in
the course -- particularly in the last few weeks.
To the point where we felt it was important enough we actually reached out to our French counterparts to inform them and make
sure they awareness of what we were aware of and also to ask them, is there something we are missing that you are seeing?
COLLINS: Thank you.
BURR: Senator King.
KING: Mr. McCabe, thank you for being here today under somewhat difficult circumstances, we appreciate your candor in your testimony.
On March 20th, Director Comey -- then Director Comey testified to the House of Representative, "I have been authorized by the
Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's
efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals
associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russian
efforts.
As with any counter intelligence investigation this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed." Is
that statement still accurate?
MCCABE: Yes sir, it is.
KING: And how many agents are assigned to this project? How many -- or personnel generally with the FBI, roughly?
MCCABE: Yeah, sorry I can't really answer those sorts of questions in this forum.
KING: Well, yesterday a White House press spokesman said that this is one of the smallest things on the plate of the FBI, is that
an accurate statement?
MCCABE: It is...
KING: Is this a small investigation in relation to all -- to all the other work that you're doing?
MCCABE: Sir, we consider it to be a highly significant investigation.
KING: So you would not characterize it as one of the smallest things you're engaged in?
MCCABE: I would not.
KING: Thank you.
Let me change the subject briefly. We're -- we've been talking about Russia and -- and their involvement in this election. One
of the issues of concern to me, and perhaps I can direct this to -- well, I'll direct it to anybody in the panel. The allegation
of Russian involvement in our electoral systems, is that an issue that is of concern and what do we know about that? And is that
being up followed up on by this investigation.
Mr. McCabe, is that part of your investigation? No I'm -- I'm not talking about the presidential election, I'm talking about state
level election infrastructure.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference
in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working
on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled,
I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas.
So we've seen this once, we are better positioned to see it the next time. We're able to improve not only our coordination with
-- primarily through the Department of Homeland -- through DHS, their -- their expansive network and to the state and local election
infrastructure. But to interact with those folks to defend against ; whether it's cyber attacks or any sort of influence driven interactions.
KING: Thank you, I think that's a very important part of this issue.
Admiral Rogers, yesterday a camera crew from TAS (ph) was allowed into the Oval Office. There was not any American press allowed,
was there any consultation with you with regard to that action in terms of the risk of some kind of cyber penetration or communications
in that incident?
ROGERS: No.
KING: Were you -- you were -- your agency wasn't consulted in any way?
ROGERS: Not that I'm aware of. I wouldn't expect that to automatically be the case; but no, not that I'm aware of.
KING: Did it raise any concerns when you saw those pictures that those cameramen and crew were in the Oval Office without....
ROGERS: I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of where the imaged came from.
KING: All right, thank you.
Mr. Coats -- Director Coats, you're -- you're -- you lead the intelligence community. Were you consulted at all with regard to
the firing of Director Comey?
COATS: I was not.
KING: So you had no -- there were no discussions with you even though the FBI's an important part of the intelligence community?
COATS: There were no discussions.
KING: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
BURR: Thank you Senator King.
Senator Lankford.
LANKFORD: Thank you, let me just run through some quick questions on this. Director McCabe, thanks for being here as well.
Let me hit some high points of some of the things I've heard already, just to be able to confirm. You have the resources you need
for the Russia investigation, is that correct?
MCCABE: Sir, we believe it's adequately resourced...
LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his
release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward?
MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely.
LANKFORD: No agents have been removed that are the ongoing career folks that are doing the investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious
way because of the removal of Jim Comey?
MCCABE: It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this investigation vigorously and completely.
LANKFORD: Do you need somebody to take this away from you and somebody else to do?
MCCABE: No sir.
L.. ... ...
MANCHIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for being here, I really appreciate it and I know that, Mr. McCabe, you seem to be of great interest of being
here. And we're going to look forward to really from hearing from all of you all in a closed hearing this afternoon which I think
that we'll able to get into more detail. So I appreciate that.
I just one question for Mr. McCabe it's basically the morale of the agency, the FBI agency and the morale basically starting back
from July 5th to July 7th, October 28th, November 6th and election day -- did you all ever think you'd be embroiled in an election
such as this and did -- what did it do to the morale?
MCCABE: Well, I -- I don't know that anyone envisioned exactly the way these things would develop. You know, as I said earlier
Senator, we are a -- a large organization. We are -- we have a lot of diversity of opinions and -- and viewpoints on things. We are
also a fiercely independent group.
MANCHIN: I'm just saying that basically, before July 5th, before the first testimony that basically Director Comey got involved
in, prior to that, did you see a change in the morale? Just yes or no -- yes a change or more anxious, more concern?
MCCABE: I think morale has always been good, however we had -- there were folks within our agency who were frustrated with the
outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those folks were very vocal about that -- those concerns.
MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about
Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and
people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs?
Has it come with your IT people coming to you or have you gone directly to them making sure that you have no interaction with
KL or any of the contractors you do business with? Just down the line there, Mr. Cardillo?
CARDILLO: Well, we count on the expertise of Admiral Rogers and the FBI to protect our systems and so I value...
MANCHIN: ...But you have I -- you have IT people, right?
CARDILLO: Absolutely.
MANCHIN: Have you talked to the IT people? Has it come to your concern that there might be a problem?
CARDILLO: I'm aware of the Kaspersky Lab challenge and/or threat.
MANCHIN: Let me tell you, it's more of a challenge -- more than a challenge, sir and I would hope that -- I'll go down the line
but I hope that all of you -- we are very much concerned about this, very much concerned about security of our country watching (ph)
their involvement.
CARDILLO: We share that.
MANCHIN: General?
STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky
software on our networks.
MANCHIN: Any contractors? STEWART: Now, the contractor piece might be a little bit harder to define but at this point we see no
connection to Kaspersky and contractors supporting (ph)...
MANCHIN: ...Admiral Rogers?
ROGERS: I'm personally aware and involved with the director on the national security issues and the Kaspersky Lab issue, yes sir.
COATS: It wasn't that long ago I was sitting up there talking -- raising issues about Kaspersky and its position here. And that
continues in this new job.
POMPEO: It has risen to the director of the CIA as well, Senator Manchin.
MANCHIN: Great.
(UNKNOWN): He's very concerned about it, sir, and we are focused on it closely.
MANCHIN: Only thing I would ask all of you, if you can give us a report back if you've swept all of your contractors to make sure
they understand the certainty you have, concern that you have about this and making sure that they can verify to you all that they're
not involved whatsoever with any Kaspersky's hardware. I'm going to switch to a couple different things because of national security.
But you know, the bottom gangs that we have in the United States, and I know -- we don't talk about them much. And when you talk
about you have MS-13, the Crips, you've got Hells Angels, Aryan Brotherhood, it goes on and on and on, it's quite a few. What is
-- what are we doing and what is it to your level -- has it been brought to your level the concern we have with these gangs within
our country, really every part of our country?
Anybody on the gangland?
MCCABE: Yes sir. So we spend a lot of time talking about that at the FBI. It's one of our highest priorities...
MANCHIN: Did the resources go out to each one of these because they're interspersed over the country?
MCCABE: We do, sir. We have been focused on the gang threat for many years. It -- like -- much like the online pharmacy threat.
It continues to change and develop harried we think it's likely a -- having an impact on elevated violent crime rates across the
country, so we're spending a lot of time focused on that.
... ... ..
COTTON: Inmates are running the asylum.
(LAUGHTER)
COTTON: So, I think everyone in this room and most Americans have come to appreciate the aggressiveness with which would Russia
uses active measures or covert influence operations, propaganda, call them what you will, as your agencies assess they did in 2016
and in hacking into those e-mails and releasing them as news reports suggest they did. In the French election last week -- that's
one reason why I sought to revive the Russian active measures working group in the FY'17 Intelligence Authorization Act.
These activities that will go far beyond elections, I think, as most of our witnesses know. former director of the CIA, Bob Gates,
in his memoir "From the Shadows," detailed soviet covert influence campaigns designed to slow or thwart the U.S. development of nuclear
delivery systems and warheads, missile-defense systems and employment of intermediate nuclear range systems to Europe.
Specifically on page 260 of his memoir, he writes "during the period, the soviets mounted a massive covert action operation, aimed
at thwarting INF deployments by NATO. We at CIA devoted tremendous resources to an effort at the time to uncovering the soviet covert
campaign. Director Casey summarized this extraordinary effort in a paper he sent to Bush, Schultz, Weinberger and Clark on January
18, 1983. We later published it and circulated it widely within the government and to the allies, and finally, provided an unclassified
version of the public to use," end quote.
I'd like to thank the CIA for digging up this unclassified version of the document and providing it to the committee, Soviet Strategy
to derail U.S. INF deployment. Specifically, undermining NATO's solidarity in those deployments. I have asked unanimous consent that
it be included in the hearing transcript and since the inmates are running the asylum, hearing no objection, we'll include it in
the transcript.
(LAUGHTER)
Director Pompeo, earlier this year, Dr. Roy Godson testified that he believed that Russia was using active measures and covert
influence efforts to undermine our nuclear modernization efforts, our missile defense deployments, and the INF Treaty, in keeping
with these past practices.
To the best of your ability in this setting, would you agree with the assessment that Russia is likely using such active measures
to undermine U.S. nuclear modernization efforts and missile defenses?
POMPEO: Yes.
COTTON: Thank you.
As I mentioned earlier, the F.Y. '17 Intelligence Authorization Act included two unclassified provisions that I authored. One
would be re-starting that old (inaudible) Measures Working Group. A second would require additional scrutiny of Russian embassy officials
who travel more than the prescribed distance from their duty station, whether it's their embassy or a consulate around the United
States.
In late 2016, when that bill was on the verge of passing, I personally received calls from high-ranking Obama administration officials
asking me to withdraw them from the bill. I declined. The bill did not pass. It passed last week as part of the F.Y. '17 spending
bill.
I did not receive any objection from Trump administration officials to include from our intelligence community.
Director Coats, are you aware of any objection that the Trump administration had to my two provisions?
COATS: No, I'm not aware of any objection.
COTTON: Director Pompeo?
POMPEO: None.
COTTON: Do you know why the Obama administration objected to those two provisions in late 2016? I would add after the 2016 presidential
election.
COATS: Well, it would be pure speculation. I don't -- I couldn't read -- I wasn't able to read the president's mind then and I
don't think I can read it now.
COTTON: Thank you.
I'd like to turn my attention to a very important provision of law. I know that you've discussed earlier section 702.
Director Rogers, it's my understanding that your agency is undertaking an effort to try to release some kind of unclassified estimate
of the number of U.S. persons who might have been incidentally collected using 702 techniques. Is that correct?
ROGERS: Sir, we're looking to see if we can quantify something that's of value to people outside the organization.
COTTON: Would -- would that require you going in and conducting searches of incidental collection that have been previously unexamined?
ROGERS: That's part of the challenge. How do I generate insight that doesn't in the process of generating the insight violate
the actual tenets that...
(CROSSTALK)
COTTON: So -- so we're -- you're trying to produce an estimate that is designed to protect privacy rights, but to produce that
estimate, you're going to have to violate privacy rights?
ROGERS: That is a potential part of all of this.
COTTON: It seems hard to do.
ROGERS: Yes, sir. That's why it has taken us a period of time and that's why we're in the midst of a dialogue.
COTTON: Is it going to be possible to produce that kind of estimate without some degree of inaccuracy or misleading information,
or infringing upon the privacy rights of Americans?
ROGERS: Probably not.
COTTON: If anyone in your agency, or for that matter, Director McCabe, in yours, believes that there is misconduct or privacy
rights are not being protected, they could, I believe under current law, come to your inspector general; come to your general counsel.
I assume you have open door policies.
ROGERS: Whistleblower protections in addition, yes, sir, and they can come to you.
COTTON: They can come to this committee.
So four -- at least four different avenues. I'm probably missing some, if they believe there are any abuses in the section 702
(inaudible).
MCCABE (?): And anyone in their chain of command.
COTTON: I would ask that we proceed with caution before producing a report that might infringe on Americans' privacy rights needlessly,
and that might make it even that much harder to reauthorize a critical program, something that, Director McCabe, your predecessor
last week just characterized, if I can paraphrase, as a must-have program, not a nice-to-have program.
Thank you.
BURR: Thank you, Senator Cotton.
Senator Harris?
HARRIS: Thank you.
Acting Director McCabe, welcome. I know you've been in this position for only about 48 hours, and I appreciate your candor with
this committee during the course of this open hearing.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Until this point, what was your role in the FBI's investigation into the Russian hacking of the 2016 election?
MCCABE: I've been the deputy director since February of 2016. So I've had an oversight role over all of our FBI operational activity,
including that investigation.
HARRIS: And now that you're acting director, what will your role be in the investigation?
MCCABE: Very similar, senior oversight role to understand what our folks are doing and to make sure they have the resources they
need and are getting the direction and the guidance they need to go forward.
HARRIS: Do you support the idea of a special prosecutor taking over the investigation in terms of oversight of the investigation,
in addition to your role?
MCCABE: Ma'am, that is a question for the Department of Justice and it wouldn't be proper for me to comment on that.
HARRIS: From your understanding, who at the Department of Justice is in charge of the investigation?
MCCABE: The deputy attorney general, who serves as acting attorney general for that investigation. He is in charge.
HARRIS: And have you had conversations with him about the investigation since you've been in this role?
MCCABE: I have. Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: And when Director Comey was fired, my understanding is he was not present in his office. He was actually in California.
So my question is: Who was in charge of securing his files and devices when that -- when that information came down that he had been
fired?
MCCABE: That's our responsibility, ma'am.
HARRIS: And are you confident that his files and his devices have been secured in a way that we can maintain whatever information
or evidence he has in connection with the investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. I am.
HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources.
And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources?
MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced.
HARRIS: And will you commit to this committee that if you do need resources, that you will come to us, understanding that we would
make every effort to get you what you need?
MCCABE: I absolutely will.
HARRIS: Has -- I understand that you've said that the White House, that you have not talked with the White House about the Russia
investigation. Is that correct?
MCCABE: That's correct.
HARRIS: Have you talked with Jeff Sessions about the investigation?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: Have you talked with anyone other than Rod Rosenstein at the Department of Justice about the investigation?
MCCABE: I don't believe I have -- you know, not recently; obviously, not in that -- not in this position.
HARRIS: Not in the last 48 hours?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: OK. What protections have been put in place to assure that the good men and women of the FBI understand that they will
not be fired if they aggressively pursue this investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. So we have very active lines of communication with the team that's -- that's working on this issue. They are
-- they have some exemplary and incredibly effective leaders that they work directly for. And I am confident that those -- that they
understand and are confident in their position moving forward on this investigation, as my investigators, analysts and professionals
staff are in everything we do every day.
HARRIS: And I agree with you. I have no question about the commitment that the men and women of the FBI have to pursue their mission.
But will you commit to me that you will directly communicate in some way now that these occurrences have happened and Director Comey
has been fired? Will you commit to me that given this changed circumstance, that you will find a way to directly communicate with
those men and women to assure them that they will not be fired simply for aggressively pursuing this investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Thank you.
And how do you believe we need to handle, to the extent that it exists, any crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI,
given the firing of Director Comey?
MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I
apologize for that.
(LAUGHTER)
You know, it was completely within the president's authority to take the steps that he did. We all understand that. We expect
that he and the Justice Department will work to find a suitable replacement and a permanent director, and we look forward to supporting
whoever that person is, whether they begin as an interim director or a permanently selected director.
This -- organization in its entirety will be completely committed to helping that person get off to a great start and do what
they need to do.
HARRIS: And do you believe that there will be any pause in the investigation during this interim period, where we have a number
of people who are in acting positions of authority?
MCCABE: No, ma'am. That is my job right now to ensure that the men and women who work for the FBI stay focused on the threats;
stay focused on the issues that are of so much importance to this country; continue to protect the American people and uphold the
Constitution. And I will ensure that that happens.
HARRIS: I appreciate that. Thank you.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
BURR: Thank you.
Senator King?
Second round, five minutes each.
Senator Wyden?
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to the question I asked you, Director Pompeo. And I went out and reviewed the response that you gave to me.
And of course, what I'm concerned about is the Sally Yates warning to the White House that Michael Flynn could be blackmailed by
the Russians.
And you said you didn't have any first-hand indication of it. Did you have any indication -- second-hand, any sense at all that
the national security adviser might be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians? That is a yes or no question.
POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You
have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're
a foreign intelligence organization.
And I'll add only this, I was not intending to be clever by using the term "first-hand." I had no second-hand or third-hand knowledge
of that conversation either.
WYDEN: So with respect to the CIA, were there any discussion with General Flynn at all?
POMPEO: With respect to what sir? He was for a period of time the national security advisor.
WYDEN: Topics that could have put at risk the security and the well being of the American people. I mean I'm just finding it very
hard to swallow that you all had no discussions with the national security advisor.
POMPEO: I spoke with the national security advisor. He was the national security advisor. He was present for the daily brief on
many occasions and we talked about all the topics we spoke to the President about.
WYDEN: But nothing relating to matters that could have compromised the security of the United States? POMPEO: Sir I can't recall
every conversation with General Flynn during that time period.
WYDEN: We're going to ask some more about it in closed session this afternoon. Admiral Rogers, let me ask you about a technical
question that I think is particularly troubling and that is the S.S. 7 question in the technology threat. Last week the Department
of Homeland Security published a lengthy study about the impact on the U.S. government of mobile phone security flaws. The report
confirmed what I have been warning about for quite some time, which is the significance of cyber security vulnerabilities associated
with a signaling system seven report says the department believes, and I quote, that all U.S. carriers are vulnerable to these exploits,
resulting in risks to national security, the economy and the federal governments ability to reliably execute national security functions.
These vulnerabilities can be exploited by criminals, terrorists and nation state actors and foreign intelligence organizations.
Do you all share the concerns of the Department of Human -- the Homeland Security Department about the severity of these vulnerabilities
and what ought to be done right now to get the government and the private sector to be working together more clearly and in a coherent
plan to deal with these monumental risks. These are risks that we're going to face with terrorists and hackers and threats. And I
think the federal communications commission has been treading water on this and I'd like to see what you want to do to really take
charge of this to deal what is an enormous vulnerability to the security of this country?
ROGERS: Sure. I hear the concern. It's a widely deployed technology in the mobile segment. I share the concern the Department
of Homeland security in their role kind of as the lead federal agency associated with cyber and support from the federal government
to the private sector as overall responsibility here.
We are trying to provide at the national security agency our expertise to help generate insights about the nature of the vulnerability,
the nature of the problem. Partnering with DHS, talking to the private sector. There's a couple of specific things from a technology
stand point that we're looking at in multiple forms that the government has created partnering with the private sector.
I'm not smart, I apologize about all of the specifics of the DHS effort. I can take that for the record if you'd like.
WYDEN: All right. I just want to respond before we break to Senator Cotton's comments with respect to section 702. Mr. Director,
glad to see my tax reform partner back in this role. You know Mr. Director that I think it's critical the American people know how
many innocent law abiding Americans are being swept up in the program. The argument that producing an estimate of the number is in
itself a violation of privacy, is I think a far fetched argue has been made for years. I and others who believe that we can have
security and liberty, that they're not mutually exclusive have always believed that this argument that you're going to be invading
peoples privacy doesn't add up. We have to have that number. Are we going to get it? Are we going to get it in time so we can have
a debate that shows that those of us who understand there are threats coming from overseas, and we support the effort to deal with
those threats as part of 702. That we are not going to have American's privacy rights indiscriminately swept up.
We need that number. When will we get it?
COATS: Senator as you recall, during my confirmation hearing, we had this discussion. I promised to you that I would -- if confirmed
and I was, talk (ph) to NSA indeed with Admiral Rogers, try to understand -- better understand why it was so difficult to come to
a specific number. I -- I did go out to NSA. I was hosted by Admiral Rogers. We spent significant time talking about that. And I
learned of the complexity of reaching that number. I think the -- the statements that had been made by Senator Cotton are very relevant
statements as to that.
Clearly, what I have learned is that a breach of privacy has to be made against American people have to be made in order to determine
whether or not they breached privacy. So, it -- it -- there is a anomaly there. They're -- they're -- they're issues of duplication.
I know that a -- we're underway in terms of setting up a time with this committee I believe in June -- as early as June to address
-- get into that issue and to address that, and talk through the complexity of why it's so difficult to say...
WYDEN: I'm...
COATS: ...this is specifically when we can get you the -- the number and what the number is. So, I -- I believe -- I believe --
we are committed -- we are committed to a special meeting with the committee to try to go through this -- this particular issue.
But I cannot give you a date because I -- I -- and -- and a number because the -- I understand the complexity of it now and why
it's so difficult for Admiral Rogers to say this specific number is the number.
WYDEN: I'm -- I'm well over my time. The point really is privacy advocates and technologists say that it's possible to get the
number. If they say it, and the government is not saying it, something is really out of synch.
You've got people who want to work with you. We must get on with this and to have a real debate about 702 that ensures that security
and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We have to have that number.
The desperation of U.S. liberals to find some truth in the claims that Donald Trump's
campaign staff colluded with Russian state actors is approaching infinity.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee all but
confirms that the only 'proof' the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have of collusion is
the discredited "Trump Dossier."
This dossier was compiled by Christopher Steele and sold to the Clinton Campaign as
opposition research by Fusion GPS. McCabe stonewalled the HIC on this matter but couldn't point
to anything in the dossier that the FBI verified to be true other than publicly-known knowledge
of Carter Page visiting Moscow in 2016.
And the last time I checked (as least for now) visiting Moscow is not a crime.
Neither is what Michael Flynn did a crime either, but let's not bring facts in to dash the
hope of the terminally insane.
McCabe
has to stonewall on this issue otherwise he and the rest of the FBI are guilty of acting on
behalf of Hillary Clinton to assist in spying on her political opponent. Because that's where
all of this leads if people would take their ideological blinders off for five seconds and look
at what we actually know as opposed to what we 'just know to be true.'
Everyone involved in this sordid affair should be tried for espionage and treason.
Those prominent liberals running around protesting the mere thought of Donald Trump shutting
down the Mueller investigation to 'protect the sanctity of our elections' are a bunch of
simpering morons.
And I'm sick to death of the blatant and rank hypocrisy when it comes to election fraud in
this country.
For this reason alone, the Mueller investigation should be shut down.
The Stupid
Show
Look, anyone taking the rumor seriously that Donald Trump was close to shutting Mueller's
investigation down should have their head examined. This was a blatant plant by the Washington
Post (and the CIA, let's get real) to create exactly the kind of response from the Wil Wheatons of our world .
These people are simply ab-reacting noradrenaline junkies living in their amygdalas 24/7
while the world moves on without them.
Oh, important thing that I forgot: There are hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans
who are prepared to take to the streets when Trump tries to fire Mueller, DAG Rosenstein, or
otherwise shut down the investigation. We're organizing here: https://t.co/0NjevMQ4oN (13/12)
-- Wil 'Kick the Nazis off the tweeters' Wheaton (@wilw) December 19,
2017
I don't know if we can stop it from happening, or if there are even enough Republicans in
government who are capable of putting our country ahead of their party. But read up and know
your history, just in case: https://t.co/79YhjPcKq9 (12/12)
-- Wil 'Kick the Nazis off the tweeters' Wheaton (@wilw) December 19,
2017
If this isn't the picture of someone in serious need of psychotherapy then
In the same week we also get this
little ditty by Newsweek . You don't think these things aren't coordinated to evoke this
kind of response in ' soy-boy '
Wheaton?
Painter, who worked under former president George W. Bush, appeared on MSNBC to discuss
the widely criticized Fox News segment that suggested the FBI's investigation into the Trump
campaign could be considered a coup.
"The commander in chief is Donald Trump," Painter said. "There is a risk of him using that
power to destroy our democracy, whether you call it a coup or anything else. It's not from
the critics of Donald Trump that the danger is posed, it's the fact that the man who is
commander in chief of our military is engaged in obstruction of justice."
The salient point here is why would Trump shut down Mueller?
Mueller has nothing on him. The longer this goes on the worse it looks for everyone involved
and Trump comes out looking like the victim of a political witch-hunt.
Trump knows and has known from the beginning that there was nothing to investigate.
The only question has been whether Mueller could invent something through nigh-onto-illegal
pressuring of people like Flynn, caught in the usual FBI web of procedural dishonesty, to turn
on Trump and perjure themselves to avoid a prison sentence.
Trump v. Mueller
In fact, the more I think about the sequence of events, the more I think the meeting between
Trump and Mueller the evening before Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel involved Trump
telling Mueller, "Good luck finding anything, Bob, I'll hang you by your own rope when this is
all over."
If I were in Trump's position I would have done exactly that. I would have goaded Mueller
into this, knowing full well that Uranium One was out there. This would have lit a fire under
Mueller to cast a wide net, turn over every rock looking for any kind of dirt. Doing so would
expose the whole rotten mess and Mueller looks like a guy running around investigating himself
in the end.
Remember, Trump is the one that brought up Uranium One in the first place on the campaign
trail. In response, Hillary, as she always does, then accused Trump of that which she was
actually guilty of – colluding with the Russians and using her position for personal
gain.
The people who want to believe in Russia-Gate are missing this in their zeal to rid the
world of Trump to validate their own failing world-view.
The longer this investigation goes on the more it will uncover the truth about what
happened. In my mind, all the Mueller is doing now is compiling the actual case to exonerate
himself over Uranium One and throw the rest of the FBI under the bus.
Given what we already know, I'd say Bob's done a good job of this and it's time for him to
step aside and let this play out.
Now we can view Brennan testimony throw the prism of Steele dossier scandal and Strzok-gate
(with whom he who probably has direct contacts)
Please note that the interview was given directly after the appointment of the Special
Prosecutor Mueller and at this time many though that Trump was "fully cooked" and that neocon and
neoliberal swamp in Washington managed to consume him.
Former CIA Director John Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday that Russia
"brazenly interfered in the 2016 election process," despite U.S. efforts to warn it off.
Brennan testified in an open session of the committee, one of a handful of congressional
committees now investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Brennan said he told his Russian counterpart, the head of Russia's FSB, last August that if
Russia pursued its efforts to interfere, "it would destroy any near-term prospect for
improvement in relations" between the two countries. He said Russia denied any attempts to
interfere.
In his opening statement, Brennan also recounted how he had briefed congressional leaders in
August of last year, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, R-Ky., and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence
Committees about the "full details" of what he knew of Russia's interference in the 2016
election. Brennan said he became convinced last summer that Russia was trying to interfere in
the campaign, saying "they were very aggressive."
Brennan said he is "aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and
interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign."
Brennan said that concerned him, "because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,"
and that it raised questions about whether or not the Russians "were able to gain the
cooperation of those individuals." Brennan added he didn't know if "collusion existed" between
the Russians and those he identified as involved in the Trump campaign.
While Brennan would not specifically identify any individuals associated with the Trump
campaign who had contacts with Russian officials and would not opine as to whether there was
any collusion or collaboration, he did tell lawmakers why he was concerned about the contacts
occurring against the general background of Russian efforts to meddle in the election. Brennan
said he's studied Russian intelligence activities over the years, and how Russian intelligence
services have been able to get people to betray their country. "Frequently, individuals on a
treasonous path do not even realize they're on that path until it gets to be too late," he
said.
Brennan said Russia was motivated to back Donald Trump in the presidential election because
of a "traditional animus" between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Russian President
Vladimir Putin. He told committee members there had not been a good relationship between Putin
and the Clintons over the years. What's more, Brennan said Putin blamed Hillary Clinton's
actions as secretary of state during the Obama administration for domestic disturbances inside
Russia. He said Putin was concerned Clinton would be more "rigid" on issues such as human
rights if elected president.
But Brennan told the committee he believed that Russia anticipated that Clinton would be the
likely winner of the presidential race, and that Russia tried to "damage and bloody" her before
Election Day. Had she won, Brennan said, Russia would have continued to attempt to "denigrate
her and hurt her" during her presidency. If Russia had collected more information about Clinton
that they did not use against her during the campaign, Brennan said they were likely
"husbanding it for another day."
On another question, Brennan criticized President Trump's reported sharing of classified
intelligence with Russia officials. Brennan said if reports were accurate, Trump violated
"protocols" by sharing the information with Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the
U.S.
Brennan also said he was "very concerned" by the release of what he said appears to be
classified information from the Trump administration. He said there appear to be "very, very
damaging leaks, and I find them appalling and they need to be tracked down."
Reacting to Brennan's testimony, a White House spokesman said "This morning's hearings back
up what we've been saying all along: that despite a year of investigation, there is still no
evidence of any Russia-Trump campaign collusion, that the President never jeopardized
intelligence sources or sharing, and that even Obama's CIA Director believes the leaks of
classified information are 'appalling' and the culprits must be 'tracked down.'"
Under questioning from Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., Brennan said the Russians have been
trying to disrupt Western elections since the 1960s, and that they've quickly adapted to the
times. Brennan pointed to the ease with which Russia was able to hack Democratic operatives'
emails, which were then published on WikiLeaks.
"The cyber-environment now really provides so much more opportunity for troublemaking and
the Russians take advantage of it," he said. Brennan said the use of spear phishing, and
"whatever else so that they can then gain access to people's emails, computer systems
networks," is something that the Russians are adept at.
He said Russia used WikiLeaks as a "cut-out," or go-between, and that protests by WikiLeaks
that it is not working with Russia and Russia's claims it is not working with WikiLeaks are
"disingenuous."
The rule for retired intelligence officials is to keep their mouth shut and disappear from
the public view. This not the case with Brennan. Probably worried about his survival chances in
case of failure, Brennan tries to justified the "putsch" of a faction of intelligence officials
against Trump. Nice... Now we have indirect proof that he conspired with Michael Morell to depose
legitimately elected president.
Now the question arise whether he worked with MI6 to create Steele dossier. In other words
did CIA supplied some information that went to the dossier.
Moreover, since JFK assassination, the CIA is prohibited from spying on American citizens,
especially tracking the activities of associates of a presidential candidate, which is clearly
political activity.
This alone should have sent warning bells off for Congress critters, yet Brennan clearly
persisted in following this dangerous for him and CIA trail. Very strange.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous ..."
"... The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides . ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it. ..."
"... It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. ..."
"... In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence. ..."
"... Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials. ..."
"... It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result. ..."
"... "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ." ..."
"... US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/ ..."
"... The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. ..."
"... Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason. ..."
"... Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface. ..."
"... "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned." ..."
"... This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist. ..."
"... What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships. ..."
"... "Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal". ..."
The Washington Post and a number
of other mainstream media outlets are sensing blood in the water in the wake of former CIA
Director John Brennan's public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The Post
headlined a front page featured article with
Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The
article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed
'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump
campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled
Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .
The precise money quote by Brennan that the two
articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that
revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the
Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the
co-operation of those individuals."
Now first of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the
activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off,
yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe, because it
was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know from the New
York Times and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services, including the
British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at
least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan
unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear
that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and
elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.
But where the information ultimately came from as well as its reliability is just
speculation as the source documents have not been made public. What is not speculative is what
Brennan actually said in his testimony. He said that Americans associated with Trump and his
campaign had met with Russians. He was "concerned" because of known Russian efforts to "suborn
such individuals." Note that Brennan, presumably deliberately, did not say "suborn those
individuals." Sure, Russian intelligence (and CIA, MI-6, and Mossad as well as a host of
others) seek to recruit people with access to politically useful information. That is what they
do for a living, but Brennan is not saying that he has or saw any evidence that that was the
case with the Trump associates. He is speaking generically of "such individuals" because he
knows that spies, inter alia , recruit politicians and the Russians presumably, like the
Americans and British, do so aggressively.
At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in
my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved
in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting
fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents
voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it.
It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented
meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the
purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do
things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and
acting Director of the CIA, should know better. That they don't explains a lot of things
about today's CIA
Brennan confirms his lack of any hard evidence when he also poses the question "whether or
not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." He doesn't know whether the
Americans were approached and asked to cooperate by Russian intelligence officers and, even if
they were, he does not know whether they agreed to do so. That means that the Americans in
question were guilty only of meeting and talking to Russians, which was presumably enough to
open an FBI investigation. One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia
was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense.
In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly
everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the
outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia
was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has
been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly
everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly
lacking in any actual evidence.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) server, which now is accepted as Gospel, but that is just
one side to the story being promoted. Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its
front page with a piece entitled Top
Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on
anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American
spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and
political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his
advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly
focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had
established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials.
The article goes on to concede that "It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials
actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn ," and that's about all there
is to the tale, though the Times wanders on for another three pages, recapping Brennan
and the Flynn saga lest anyone has forgotten. So what do we have? Russians were talking on the
phone about the possibility of influencing an American's presidential candidate's advisers, an
observation alluded to by Brennan and also revealed in somewhat more detail by anonymous
sources. Pretty thin gruel, isn't it? Isn't that what diplomats and intelligence officers
do?
It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United
States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places
including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria,
Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point
of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem
when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even
if it almost never has that result.
How one regards all of the dreck coming out of the Fourth Estate and poseurs like John
Brennan pretty much depends on the extent one is willing to trust that what the government, its
highly-politicized bureaucrats and the media tell the public is true. For me, that would be not
a lot. The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable, but buying into
government and media lies will only lead to more lies that have real consequences, up to and
including the impending wars against North Korea and Iran. It is imperative that every American
should question everything he or she reads in a newspaper, sees on television "news" or hears
coming out of the mouths of former and current government employees.
Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. It's lonely standing against the tide, and many are
trying to fabricate excuses for the lack of evidence.
Take Melvin Goodman, author of Whistleblower at the CIA, for instance. (I realize CIA is a
big place, but did you know him?) I've met Mr. Goodman, and he struck me as thoughtful,
rational and capable of objective discussion. However, in his talk at the Gaithersburg Book
Festival, he seemed a rather different person. At the end of Q&A, he said that he was
trying to figure out how the Russians had laundered the "hacked" DNC emails to make it look
like they were leaked by an insider. He's sure the Russians did it. With such creative
speculation, who needs facts?
The book, though, is probably pretty good. Which makes it that much stranger that he's
taking the political line on the DNC emails!
Ah, another day, another disgraceful display by the media. Incidentally: "The
"discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ."
"Presumably" here is quite generous: I'd be tempted to presume a whole string of lies
.
It's like climate change: The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the
Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find
that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have
actually been the case. Nevertheless, the case is settled. Pravda and Izvestia should have
been so convinced in their day.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to
consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.
It all seems quite simple to me. After WWI the USA people decided that their sons should
not die ever more for imperialism. Isolation, neutrality laws. In 1932 Roosevelt was brought
into politics to make the USA great, great as the country controlling the world. Trump and
his rich friends understand that this policy is not just ruining the USA, but is ruining them
personally. If I'm right in this, it is the greatest change in USA foreign policy since
1932.
Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control
of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As
Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to
them is high treason.
@exiled off mainstreet The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war,
since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both
fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our
survival.
Is he an Anglo-Zionist? I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the
article
Is someone going to look in to how the Izzys influence our politicians and elections? No.
Why? Because Russia is the "enemy" and Israel is our "ally." Can someone explain in simple
terms why Russia is the enemy? Yes. Because Jews don't like them very much. Can someone
explain in simple terms why Israel is our ally? Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN,
Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual
citizenship, etc. And because every president just can't wait to wear the beanie and
genuflect at some wall. Any other questions?
" One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is
not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense".
Although in point of fact the USA has committed, and continues to commit, acts of war
against Russia.
"Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major
newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. "
Let's not forget 911 and it's ongoing coverup, the State Dept's Bureau of Near Eastern
Affairs exemplifying our bestest ally's parallel command and control apparatus in every
federal agency such as the FBI, etc
The only problem I have with the article is understanding the vehemence with which Brennan
and Morell are denounced for, as I read it, blathering about unwitting agents who might have
co-operated without knowing it. I construed the objection to be based on a foreign
intelligence service necessarily seeking to "direct" its agents. It would indeed follow that
the agents could not help knowing what they were doing. However .
Is there not a category of people who Brennan and Morell might be referring to who could
be aptly described as useful idiots. You meet them at a writer's festival, invite them to
accept your country's generous and admiring hospitality and soon have them spouting the memes
you have made sure they are fed as well inadvertently feeding you useful titbits of
information, especially about people.
I think something fascinating is going on, Tom. Our leaders made a choice to defraud us
into the Iraq war. Russia didn't. This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero
accountability. It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for
having done this, are the one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.
The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes
THEY committed, not anything the Russians did. If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go
unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior. I do not know of one American,
anywhere, who feels this is okay.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that
hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server
It doesn't matter. Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar
question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch.
Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess.,
while the answer was so close, on the surface.
"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to
interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who
typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a
typical Russian technique. So we were concerned."
I know some others actually know you cannot believe spies. Some on the other hand so
not.
Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media. It is no longer disputed that
the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and
journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.
August 30, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW By Prof. James F.
Tracy
Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in
US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears
and reads on a regular basis.
@alexander Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American – I
am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here
– in miniature – with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their
jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.
I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so
largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue
explains very clearly how it works.
-------------------------------------–
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did
not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and
destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob
on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come
back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia
nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert
@Tom Welsh I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is
true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking
himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over
the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at
least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack
Poland. The trap worked.
@Agent76 That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the
CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough. The CIA is not a secret
service, it is a secret army. This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly
for the USA market, when funds for the CIA's war in Afghanistan were insufficient.
@alexander It is.
After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report
of considerable size. What happened ? Nothing. Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud
in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.
Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State's Voter
Database
While most of the country frets over Russia's role in the 2016 election, the state of
Georgia has come forward saying that they've traced an IP from a hack of their voter database
right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus
on protecting our vote from our own government.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider
even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular
profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine
(initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started
immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but
this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was
confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media
on Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and
Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne
Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
Unfortunately for you and myself there are literally millions of people in America who do
not think or challenge what they read or view as we do apparently. Thanks, *government
schooling* .
Mar 6, 2017 Drug Boss Escobar Worked for the CIA
The notorious cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar worked closely with the CIA, according to his
son. In this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the long history of CIA
involvement in the international narcotics trade, beginning with its collaboration with the
French Mafia to using drug money to illegally fund the Contras and overthrow the Sandinista
government in Nicaragua.
I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he
sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself
care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the
Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least
since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland.
The trap worked.
What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the
form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key
sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what
the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist
scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it
works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.
As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that
holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and
came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who
assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the
British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA
would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much
mistaken.
"Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very
much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery
to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference,
it would be illegal".
@Tom Welsh Well, another ruler also stated this, "Education is a weapon whose effects
depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Joseph Stalin
Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel
that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make
the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed
by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on
Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela,
has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an
American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014
I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a
Zio-bankster-quisling.
PG:
the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken
in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.
getting to the crux of the matter
when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan /
Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine
(some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate
Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking".
The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as
you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])
has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria
and elsewhere too.
All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll
eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery.
Which brings us to this curious comment..
The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,
what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!
So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know
the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made
symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the
zio-media/AIPAC/etc..
His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the
apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.
In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on
the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.
And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at
Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's
need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets
them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get
to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than
anything else.
"... Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way. ..."
"... And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. ..."
"... Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him. But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map where I live. ..."
I was raised by Democrats, and used to vote for them. But these days, I think heck would
freeze over before I'd vote Democrat again. From my point of view, Bernie tried to pull them
back to sanity. But the hard core Clinton-corporate-corrupt Democrats have declared war on
any movement for reform within the Democratic Party. And there is no way that I'm voting for
any of these corrupt-corporate Democrats ever again.
Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been
around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way
forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way.
We saw the way the corrupt-corporate Democrats colluded and rigged the last Presidential
Primaries so that Corrupt-Corporate-Clinton was guaranteed the corrupt-corporate Democrat
nomination. That's a loud and clear message to anyone who thinks they can achieve change
within the corrupt-corporate-colluding-rigged Democratic Party.
Since I've always been anti-war, I've been forced to follow what anti-war movement there
is over to the Republicans. And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the
Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous
primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. That never happened, and by 2012 I was
convinced that even the fake-reformers within the corrupt-corporate Democrats were fakes who
only wanted fund-raising but didn't really fight for reform.
Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to
voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the
only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the
Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the
loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him.
But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in
primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map
where I live.
Neither party is on our side. The establishment in both parties is crooked and corrupt.
Someone needs to fight them. And I sure as heck won't vote for the corrupt and the crooked.
Since the Democrats are doubling down on corrupt and crooked and telling such big lies that
even Goebbels would blush, it doesn't look like I'll ever vote Dem0crat again.
"... RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations? ..."
"... MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution. ..."
"... WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. ..."
"... Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a sembl ..."
"... At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks. ..."
"... MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year. ..."
"... MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day. ..."
"... MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time. ..."
"... Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge? ..."
"... COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made? ..."
"... MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas. ..."
"... LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward? ..."
"... MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely. ..."
"... LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey? ..."
"... MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs? ..."
"... STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks. ..."
"... HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources? ..."
"... MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced. ..."
"... MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that ..."
"... POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign intelligence organization. ..."
what is interesting is that whuile answering "yes" about Russian interference in election is
safe answer, the real quesion is whehther Russian intergfernce exceed in scope British (Stele
dossier), Israel (via Kushner) and Saudi interference to name a few. If no this is a witch
hunt. Russia is just another neoliberal state, so why it can be a threat to the US neoliberalm
and empire is unlear. It does has its own interests in former USSR space. How would the US
react if Russia halped to depose legitimate goverment in Mexico and started to supply arms in
order to get back California, Texas and Florida which new government would consider were
occupied by the the USA illegally? the fact that Russia does not want ot be Washington vassal
is not illegal. And there is nothing criminal in attempts to resist the spread of the US
neoliberal empire on xUSSR space.
SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: Intelligence community assessment accurately characterized the
extent of Russian activities in the 2016 election and its conclusion that Russian
intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking and leaking of information and using
misinformation to influence our elections? Simple yes or no would suffice.
ROBERT CARDILLO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: I do. Yes, sir.
STEWART: Yes, Senator.
ROGERS: Yes I do.
DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE : Yes I do.
MIKE POMPEO, DIRECTOR, CIA: Yes.
MCCABE: Yes.
WARNER: And I guess the presumption there -- or the next presumption, I won't even ask
this question is consequently that committee assess -- or that community assessment was
unanimous and is not a piece of fake news or evidence of some other individual or nation
state other than Russia. So I appreciate that again for the record.
I warned you Mr. McCabe I was going to have to get you on the record as well on this. Mr.
McCabe for as long as you are Acting FBI Director do you commit to informing this committee
of any effort to interfere with the FBI's ongoing investigation into links between Russia and
the Trump campaign?
MCCABE: I absolutely do.
WARNER: Thank you so much for that. I think in light of what's happened in the last 48
hours it's critically important that we have that assurance and I hope you'll relay, at least
from me to the extraordinary people that work at the FBI that this committee supports them,
supports their efforts, support their professionalism and supports their independence.
MCCABE: I will sir, thank you.
WARNER: In light of the fact that we just saw French elections where it felt like deja vu
all over again in terms of the release of a series of e-mails against Mr. Macron days before
the election and the fact that this committee continues to investigate the type of tactics
that Russia has used.
Where do we stand, as a country, of preparation to make sure this doesn't happen again in
2018 and 2020 -- where have we moved in terms of collaboration with state voting -- voter
files, in terms of working more with the tech community, particularly the platform --
platform entities in terms of how we can better assure real news versus fake news, is there
some general sense -- Director Coats I know you've only been in the job for a short period of
time -- of how we're going to have a strategic effort? Because while it was Russia in 2016
other nation states could -- you know -- launch similar type assaults.
COATS: Well, we are -- we will continue to use all the assets that we have in terms of
collection and analysis relative to what the influence has been and potentially could be in
future. Russians have spread this across the globe -- interestingly enough I met with the
Prime Minister of Montenegro the latest nation to join NATO, the number 29 nation, what was
the main topic?
Russian interference in their political system. And so it does -- it sweeps across Europe
and other places. It's clear though, the Russians have upped their game using social media
and other opportunities that we -- in ways that we haven't seen before. So it's a great
threat to our -- our democratic process and our job here is to provide the best intelligence
we can to the policy makers to -- as they develop a strategy in terms of how to best reflect
a response to this.
WARNER: Well one of the things I'm concerned about is, we've all expressed this concern
but since this doesn't fall neatly into any particular agency's jurisdiction you know, who's
-- who's taking the point on interacting with the platform companies like the Google,
Facebook and Twitter, who's taking the point in terms of interacting DHS image in terms of
state boards of election? How are we trying to ensure that our systems more secure, and if we
can get a brief answer on that because I got one last question for Admiral Rogers.
COATS: Well, I think the -- the obviously, our office tasks and takes the point, but
there's contribution from agencies across the I.C. We will -- I've asked Director Pompeo to
address that and others that might want to address that also. But each of us -- each of the
agencies to the extent that they can and have the capacity whether its NSA though SIGINT,
whether it's NSA through human or other sources will provide information to us that we want
to use as a basis to provide to our -- to our policymakers.
Relative to a grand strategy, I am not aware right now of any -- I think we're still
assessing the impact. We have not put a grand strategy together, which would not be our
purview, we would provide the basis of intelligence that would then be the foundation for
what that strategy would be.
WARNER: My hope -- my hope would be that we need to be proactive in this. We don't want to
be sitting here kind of looking back at it after 2018 election cycle. Last question, very
briefly, Admiral Rogers do you have any doubt that the Russians were behind the intervention
in the French elections?
ROGERS: I -- let me phrase it this way, we are aware of some Russian activity directed
against the Russian -- excuse me, directed against the French election process. As I
previously said before Congress earlier this week, we in fact reached out to our French
counterparts to say, we have become aware of this activity, we want to make you aware, what
are you seeing?
I'm not in a position to have looked at the breadth of the French infrastructure. So I'm
-- I'm not really in a position to make a whole simple declaratory statement.
WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BURR: Senator Rubio?
RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any
individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr.
Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any
investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations?
MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite
any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our
investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from
doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution.
RUBIO: And this is for all the members of the committee, as has been widely reported, and
people know this, Kaspersky Lab software is used by not hundreds of thousands, millions of
Americans. To each of our witnesses I would just ask, would any of you be comfortable with
the Kaspersky Lab software on your computers?
COATS: A resounding no, from me.
POMPEO: No.
MCCABE: No, Senator.
ROGERS: No, sir.
STEWART: No, Senator.
CARDILLO: No, sir.
... ... ...
POMPEO: I'll -- I'll let Mr. McCabe make a comment as well, but yes, of course. Frankly,
this is consistent with what -- right, this is the -- the -- the attempt to interfere in
United States is not limited to Russia. The Cubans have deep ties, it is in their deepest
tradition to take American visitors and do their best influence of the way that is in adverse
to U.S. interests.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. Fully agree, we share your concerns about that issue.
RUBIO: And my final question is on -- all this focus on Russia and what's happened in the
past is that the opinion of all of you -- or those of -- you certainly all have insight on
this. That even as we focus on 2016 and the efforts leading up to that election, efforts to
influence policy making here in the United States vis-a-vis the Russian interests are ongoing
that the Russians continue to use active measures; even at this moment, even on this day.
To try, through the use of multiple different ways, to influence the political debate and
the decisions made in American politics; particularly as they pertain to Russia's interests
around the world. In essence, these active measures is an ongoing threat, not simply
something that happened in the past.
MCCABE: Yes, sir, that's right.
POMPEO: Senator, it's right. In some sense, though, we've got to put it in context, this
has been going on for a long time. There's -- there's nothing new. Only the cost has been
lessened, the cost of doing it.
COATS: I -- I would just add that the use of cyber and social media has significantly
increased the impact and the capabilities that -- obviously this has been done for years and
years. Even decades. But the ability they have to -- to use the interconnectedness and -- and
all the -- all that that provides, that didn't provide before I -- they literally upped their
game to the point where it's having a significant impact.
ROGERS: From my perspective I would just highlight cyber is enabling them to access
information in massive quantities that weren't quite obtainable to the same level previously
and that's just another tool in their attempt to acquire information, misuse of that
information, manipulation, outright lies, inaccuracies at time.
But other times, actually dumping raw data which is -- as we also saw during this last
presidential election cycle for us.
... ... ...
COATS: I can't speak to how many agents of -- of the U.S. government are as cognizant as
perhaps we should be but I certainly think that, given China's aggressive approach relative
to information gathering and -- and all the things that you mentioned merits a -- a review of
CFIUS in terms of whether or not it is -- needs to have some changes or innovations to -- to
address the aggressive -- aggressive Chinese actions not just against or companies, but
across the world.
They -- they clearly have a strategy through their investments, they've started a major
investment bank -- you name a park of the world Chinese probably are -- are there looking to
put investments in. We've seen the situation in Djibouti where they're also adding military
capability to their investment, strategic area for -- on the Horn of Africa there that --
that you wouldn't necessarily expect. But they're active in Africa, Northern Africa, they're
active across the world.
Their one belt, one road process opens -- opens their trade and -- and what other interest
they have to the Indian Ocean in -- and a different way to address nations that they've had
difficulty connecting with. So it's a -- it's clearly an issue that we ought to take a look
at.
... ... ...
WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room
but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a semblance of ethics. Director Comey
should be here this morning testifying to the American people about where the investigation
he's been running stands.
At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into
connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information
didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in
recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have
forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly
that he loved WikiLeaks.
So the question is not whether Donald Trump actively encouraged the Russians and WikiLeaks
to attack our democracy, he did; that is an established fact. The only question is whether he
or someone associated with him coordinated with the Russians.
Now, Mr. McCabe, the president's letter to Director Comey asserted that on three separate
occasions the director informed him that he was not under investigations. Would it have been
wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigations? Yes or no?
MCCABE: Sir, I'm not going to comment on any conversations that the director may have had
with the president...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: I didn't ask that. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was
not under investigation? That's not about conversations, that's yes or no answer.
MCCABE: As you know, Senator. We typically do not answer that question. I will not comment
on whether or not the director and the president of the United States had that
conversation.
WYDEN: Will you refrain from these kinds of alleged updates to the president or anyone
else in the White House on the status of the investigation?
MCCABE: I will.
WYDEN: Thank you.
Director Pompeo, one of the few key unanswered questions is why the president didn't fire
Michael Flynn after Acting Attorney General Yates warned the White House that he could be
blackmailed by the Russians. Director Pompeo, did you know about the acting attorney
general's warnings to the White House or were you aware of the concerns behind the
warning?
POMPEO: I -- I don't have any comment on that.
WYDEN: Well, were you aware of the concerns behind the warning? I mean, this is a global
threat. This is a global threat question, this is a global threat hearing. Were you...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: Tell me...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: Were you aware?
POMPEO: Senator, tell me what global threat it is you're concerned with, please. I'm not
sure I understand the question.
WYDEN: Well, the possibility of blackmail. I mean, blackmail by a influential military
official, that has real ramifications for the global threat. So this is not about a policy
implication, this is about the national security advisor being vulnerable to blackmail by the
Russians. And the American people deserve to know whether in these extraordinary
circumstances the CIA kept them safe.
POMPEO: Yes, sir, the CIA's kept America safe. And...
WYDEN: So...
POMPEO: And the people at the Central Intelligence Agency are committed to that and will
remain committed to that. And we will...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... do that in the face of...
WYDEN: You won't answer the question...
POMPEO: We will do that in the face of political challenges that come from any direction,
Senator.
WYDEN: But, you will not answer the question of whether or not you were aware of the
concerns behind the Yates warning.
POMPEO: Sir, I don't know exactly what you're referring to with the Yates warning, I -- I
-- I wasn't part of any of those conversations. I -- I... (CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: The Yates warning was...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... I have no first hand information with respect to the warning that was
given.
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: She didn't make that warning to me. I -- I can't -- I can't answer that question,
Senator...
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: ... as much as I would like to.
WYDEN: OK.
Director Coats, how concerned are you that a Russian government oil company, run by a
Putin crony could end up owning a significant percentage of U.S. oil refining capacity and
what are you advising the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States about
this?
COATS: I don't have specific information relative to that. I think that's something that
potentially, we could provide intelligence on in terms of what this -- what situation might
be, but...
WYDEN: I'd like you to furnace that in writing. Let me see if I can get one other question
in, there have been mountains of press stories with allegations about financial connections
between Russia and Trump and his associates. The matters are directly relevant to the FBI and
my question is, when it comes to illicit Russian money and in particular, it's potential to
be laundered on its way to the United States, what should the committee be most concerned
about?
We hear stories about Deutsche Bank, Bank of Cypress, Shell companies in Moldova, the
British Virgin Islands. I'd like to get your sense because I'm over my time. Director McCabe,
what you we most -- be most concerned about with respect to illicit Russian money and its
potential to be laundered on its way the United States?
MCCABE: Certainly sir. So as you know, I am not in the position to be able to speak about
specific investigations and certainly not in this setting. However, I will confirm for you
that those are issues that concern us greatly.
They have traditionally and they do even more so today, as it becomes easier to conceal
the origin and the -- and the track and the destination of purpose of illicit money flows, as
the exchange of information becomes more clouded in encryption and then more obtuse, it
becomes harder and harder to get to the bottom of those investigations. That would shed light
on those issues.
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator Risch?
RISCH: Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I -- the purpose of this hearing as the chairman
expressed is to give the American people some insight into what we all do, which they don't
see pretty much at all. And so I think what I want to do is I want to make an observation and
then I want to get your take on it, anybody who wants to volunteer. And I'm going to start
with you Director Coats, to volunteer.
My -- I have been -- I've been on this committee all the time I've been here in the Senate
and all through the last administration. And I have been greatly impressed by the current
administrations hitting the ground running during the first hundred days, as far as their
engagement on intelligence matters and their engagement with foreign countries. The national
media here is focused on domestic issues which is of great interest to the American people be
it healthcare, be it personnel issues in the government.
And they don't -- the -- the media isn't as focused on this administrations fast, and in
my judgment, robust engagement with the intelligence communities around the world and with
other governments. And my impression is that it's good and it is aggressive. And I want --
I'd like you're -- I'd like your impression of where we're going. Almost all of you had real
engagement in the last administration and all the administrations are different. So Director
Coats, you want to take that on to start with?
COATS: I'd be happy to start with that, I think most presidents that come into office come
with an agenda in mind in terms of what issues they'd like to pursue, many of them issues
that effect -- domestic issues that affect infrastructure and education and a number of
things only to find that this is dangerous world, that the United States -- that the threats
that exist out there need to be -- be given attention to.
This president, who I think the perception was not interested in that, I think Director
Pompeo and I can certify the fact that we have spent far more hours in the Oval Office than
we anticipated. The president is a voracious consumer of information and asking questions and
asking us to provide intelligence. I -- we are both part of a process run through the
national security council, General McMaster, all through the deputy's committees and the
principal's committees consuming hours and hours of time looking at the threats, how do we
address those threats, what is the intelligence that tells us -- that informs the policy
makers in terms of how they put a strategy in place.
And so what I initially thought would be a one or two time a week, 10 to 15 minute quick
brief, has turned into an everyday, sometimes exceeding 45 minutes to an hour or more just in
briefing the president. We have -- I have brought along several of our directors to come and
show the president what their agencies do and how important it is the info -- that the
information they provide how that -- for the basis of making policy decisions.
I'd like to turn to my CIA colleague to get -- let him give you, and others, to give you
their impression.
RISCH: I appreciate that. We're almost out of time but I did -- Director Pompeo you kind
of sit in the same spot we all sit in through the last several years and I kind of like your
observations along the line of Director Coats, what you feel about the matter?
POMPEO: Yeah, I think Director Coats had it right. He and I spend time with the president
everyday, briefing him with the most urgent intelligence matters that are presented to us as
-- in our roles. He asks good, hard questions. Make us go make sure we're doing our work in
the right way.
Second, you asked about engagement in the world. This administration has reentered the
battle space in places the administration -- the previous administration was completely
absent. You all travel some too...
RISCH: Yes.
POMPEO: ... you will hear that when you go travel. I've now taken two trips to places and
they welcome American leadership. They're not looking for American soldiers, they're not
looking for American boots on the ground, they're looking for American leadership around the
globe and this president has reentered that space in a way that I think will serve America's
interest very well.
RISCH: Yeah I -- I couldn't agree more and we -- we deal with them not only overseas but
they come here, as you know, regularly.
POMPEO: Yes sir.
RISCH: And the fact that the president has pulled the trigger twice as he has in -- in the
first 100 days and -- and done it in a fashion that didn't start a world war and -- and was
watched by both our friends and our enemies has made a significant and a huge difference as
far as our standing in the world. My time's up. Thank you very much Mr. Chair.
WARNER: Thank you Senator.
Senator Heinrich.
HEINRICH: Director McCabe you -- you obviously have several decades of law enforcement
experience, is it -- is it your experience that people who are innocent of wrong doing
typically need to be reassured that they're not the subject of an investigation?
MCCABE: No sir.
HEINRICH: And I ask that because I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the dismissal
letter from -- earlier this week from the president where he writes, "While I greatly
appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation."
And I'm still trying to figure out why that would even make it into a dismissal letter. But
let me go to something a little more direct.
Director, has anyone in the White House spoken to you directly about the Russia
investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
HEINRICH: Let me -- when -- when did you last meet with the president, Director
McCabe?
MCCABE: I don't think I -- I'm in...
HEINRICH: Was it earlier this week?
MCCABE: ... the position to comment on that. I have met with the president this week, but
I really don't want to go into the details of that.
HEINRICH: OK. But Russia did not come up?
MCCABE: That's correct, it did not.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you. We've heard in the news that -- that -- claims that Director
Comey had -- had lost the confidence of rank and file FBI employees. You've been there for 21
years, in your opinion is it accurate that the rank and file no longer supported Director
Comey?
MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very
closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive
assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the
Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year.
MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have
the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the
greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also
that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day.
We are a large organization, we are 36,500 people across this country, across this globe.
We have a diversity of opinions about many things, but I can confidently tell you that the
majority -- the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection to
Director Comey.
HEINRICH: Thank you for your candor. Do you feel like you have the adequate resources for
the existing investigations that the -- that the bureau is invested in right now to -- to
follow them wherever they may lead?
MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the
adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately.
If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we
face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become
an issue over time.
HEINRICH: Sure.
MCCABE: But in terms of that investigation, sir, I can -- I can assure you we are
covered.
HEINRICH: Thank you.
Director Coats, welcome back. Would you agree that it is a national security risk to
provide classified information to an individual who has been compromised by a foreign
government as a broad matter.
COATS: As a broad matter, yes.
HEINRICH: If the attorney general came to you and said one of your employees was
compromised what -- what sort of action would you take?
COATS: I would take the action as prescribed in our procedures relative to how we report
this ad how it's -- how it is processed. I mean, it's a serious -- serious issue Our -- our
-- I would be consulting with our legal counsel and consulting with our inspector general and
others as to how -- how best to proceed with this, but obviously we will take action.
HEINRICH: Would -- would one of the options be dismissal, obviously?
COATS: Very potentially could be dismissal, yes.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you Director.
BURR: Senator Collins?
COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman.
Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into
Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge?
MCCABE: I mean we have many agents involved in the investigation at many levels so I'm not
who you're referring to.
COLLINS: The lead agent overseeing the investigation.
MCCABE: Certainly, almost all of the agents involved in the investigation are still in
their positions.
COLLINS: So has there been any curtailment of the FBI's activities in this important
investigation since Director Comey was fired?
MCCABE: Ma'am, we don't curtail our activities. As you know, has the -- are people
experiencing questions and are reacting to the developments this week? Absolutely.
COLLINS: Does that get in the way of our ability to pursue this or any other
investigation?
MCCABE: No ma'am, we continue to focus on our mission and get that job done.
COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your
opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional
resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian
active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact
made?
MCCABE: I cannot confirm that request was made. As you know ma'am, when we need resources,
we make those requests here. So I -- I don't -- I'm not aware of that request and it's not
consistent with my understanding of how we request additional resources.
That said, we don't typically request resources for an individual case. And as I
mentioned, I strongly believe that the Russian investigation is adequately resourced.
COLLINS: You've also been asked a question about target letters. Now, it's my understanding
that when an individual is the target of an investigation, at some point, a letter is sent
out notifying a individual that he is a target, is that correct?
MCCABE: No ma'am, I -- I don't believe that's correct.
COLLINS: OK. So before there is going to be an indictment, there is not a target letter
sent out by the Justice Department?
MCCABE: Not that I'm aware of.
COLLINS: OK that's contrary to my -- my understanding, but let me ask you the reverse.
MCCABE: Again, I'm looking at it from the perspective of the investigators. So that's not
part of our normal case investigative practice.
COLLINS: That would be the Justice Department, though. The Justice Department...
MCCABE: I see, I see...
COLLINS: I'm -- I'm asking you, isn't it standard practice when someone is the target of
an investigation and is perhaps on the verge of being indicted that the Justice Department
sends that individual what is known as a target letter?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am I'm going have to defer that question to the Department of Justice.
COLLINS: Well, let me ask you the -- the flip side of that and perhaps you don't know the
answer to this question but is it standard practice for the FBI to inform someone that they
are not a target of an investigation?
MCCABE: It is not.
COLLINS: So it would be unusual and not standard practice for there -- it -- for there to
have been a notification from the FBI director to President Trump or anyone else involved in
this investigation, informing him or her that that individual I not a target, is that
correct?
MCCABE: Again ma'am, I'm not going to comment on what Director Comey may or may not have
done.
COLLINS: I -- I'm not asking you to comment on the facts of the case, I'm just trying to
figure out what's standard practice and what's not.
MCCABE: Yes ma'am. I'm not aware of that being a standard practice.
COLLINS: Admiral Rogers, I want to follow up on Senator Warner's question to you about the
attempted interference in the French...
ROGERS: French.
COLLINS: ... election. Some researchers, including the cyber intelligence firm Flashpoint
claim that APT28 is the group that was behind the stealing of the -- and the leaking of the
information about the president elect of France, the FBI and DHS have publicly tied APT28 to
Russian intelligence services in the joint analysis report last year after the group's
involvement in stealing data that was leaked in the run up to the U.S. elections in
November.
Is the I.C. in a position to attribute the stealing and the leaking that took place prior
to the French election to be the result of activities by this group, which is linked to
Russian cyber activity?
ROGERS: Again ma'am, right now I don't think I have a complete picture of all the activity
associated with France but as I have said publicly, both today and previously, we are aware
of specific Russian activity directed against the French election cycle in the course --
particularly in the last few weeks.
To the point where we felt it was important enough we actually reached out to our French
counterparts to inform them and make sure they awareness of what we were aware of and also to
ask them, is there something we are missing that you are seeing?
COLLINS: Thank you.
BURR: Senator King.
KING: Mr. McCabe, thank you for being here today under somewhat difficult circumstances,
we appreciate your candor in your testimony.
On March 20th, Director Comey -- then Director Comey testified to the House of
Representative, "I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI,
as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts
to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of
any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government
and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russian efforts.
As with any counter intelligence investigation this will also include an assessment of
whether any crimes were committed." Is that statement still accurate?
MCCABE: Yes sir, it is.
KING: And how many agents are assigned to this project? How many -- or personnel generally
with the FBI, roughly?
MCCABE: Yeah, sorry I can't really answer those sorts of questions in this forum.
KING: Well, yesterday a White House press spokesman said that this is one of the smallest
things on the plate of the FBI, is that an accurate statement?
MCCABE: It is...
KING: Is this a small investigation in relation to all -- to all the other work that
you're doing?
MCCABE: Sir, we consider it to be a highly significant investigation.
KING: So you would not characterize it as one of the smallest things you're engaged
in?
MCCABE: I would not.
KING: Thank you.
Let me change the subject briefly. We're -- we've been talking about Russia and -- and
their involvement in this election. One of the issues of concern to me, and perhaps I can
direct this to -- well, I'll direct it to anybody in the panel. The allegation of Russian
involvement in our electoral systems, is that an issue that is of concern and what do we know
about that? And is that being up followed up on by this investigation.
Mr. McCabe, is that part of your investigation? No I'm -- I'm not talking about the
presidential election, I'm talking about state level election infrastructure.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The --
the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great
concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past
several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question
that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations
of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas.
So we've seen this once, we are better positioned to see it the next time. We're able to
improve not only our coordination with -- primarily through the Department of Homeland --
through DHS, their -- their expansive network and to the state and local election
infrastructure. But to interact with those folks to defend against ; whether it's cyber
attacks or any sort of influence driven interactions.
KING: Thank you, I think that's a very important part of this issue.
Admiral Rogers, yesterday a camera crew from TAS (ph) was allowed into the Oval Office.
There was not any American press allowed, was there any consultation with you with regard to
that action in terms of the risk of some kind of cyber penetration or communications in that
incident?
ROGERS: No.
KING: Were you -- you were -- your agency wasn't consulted in any way?
ROGERS: Not that I'm aware of. I wouldn't expect that to automatically be the case; but
no, not that I'm aware of.
KING: Did it raise any concerns when you saw those pictures that those cameramen and crew
were in the Oval Office without....
ROGERS: I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of where the imaged came from.
KING: All right, thank you.
Mr. Coats -- Director Coats, you're -- you're -- you lead the intelligence community. Were
you consulted at all with regard to the firing of Director Comey?
COATS: I was not.
KING: So you had no -- there were no discussions with you even though the FBI's an
important part of the intelligence community?
COATS: There were no discussions.
KING: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
BURR: Thank you Senator King.
Senator Lankford.
LANKFORD: Thank you, let me just run through some quick questions on this. Director
McCabe, thanks for being here as well.
Let me hit some high points of some of the things I've heard already, just to be able to
confirm. You have the resources you need for the Russia investigation, is that correct?
MCCABE: Sir, we believe it's adequately resourced...
LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the
actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI,
it's still moving forward?
MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely.
LANKFORD: No agents have been removed that are the ongoing career folks that are doing the
investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the
investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey?
MCCABE: It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this
investigation vigorously and completely.
LANKFORD: Do you need somebody to take this away from you and somebody else to do?
MCCABE: No sir.
L.. ... ...
MANCHIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for being here, I really appreciate it and I know that, Mr. McCabe, you
seem to be of great interest of being here. And we're going to look forward to really from
hearing from all of you all in a closed hearing this afternoon which I think that we'll able
to get into more detail. So I appreciate that.
I just one question for Mr. McCabe it's basically the morale of the agency, the FBI agency
and the morale basically starting back from July 5th to July 7th, October 28th, November 6th
and election day -- did you all ever think you'd be embroiled in an election such as this and
did -- what did it do to the morale?
MCCABE: Well, I -- I don't know that anyone envisioned exactly the way these things would
develop. You know, as I said earlier Senator, we are a -- a large organization. We are -- we
have a lot of diversity of opinions and -- and viewpoints on things. We are also a fiercely
independent group.
MANCHIN: I'm just saying that basically, before July 5th, before the first testimony that
basically Director Comey got involved in, prior to that, did you see a change in the morale?
Just yes or no -- yes a change or more anxious, more concern?
MCCABE: I think morale has always been good, however we had -- there were folks within our
agency who were frustrated with the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those
folks were very vocal about that -- those concerns.
MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to
the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it
risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly
concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far
outreaching as KL Labs?
Has it come with your IT people coming to you or have you gone directly to them making
sure that you have no interaction with KL or any of the contractors you do business with?
Just down the line there, Mr. Cardillo?
CARDILLO: Well, we count on the expertise of Admiral Rogers and the FBI to protect our
systems and so I value...
MANCHIN: ...But you have I -- you have IT people, right?
CARDILLO: Absolutely.
MANCHIN: Have you talked to the IT people? Has it come to your concern that there might be
a problem?
CARDILLO: I'm aware of the Kaspersky Lab challenge and/or threat.
MANCHIN: Let me tell you, it's more of a challenge -- more than a challenge, sir and I
would hope that -- I'll go down the line but I hope that all of you -- we are very much
concerned about this, very much concerned about security of our country watching (ph) their
involvement.
CARDILLO: We share that.
MANCHIN: General?
STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and
I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks.
MANCHIN: Any contractors? STEWART: Now, the contractor piece might be a little bit harder
to define but at this point we see no connection to Kaspersky and contractors supporting
(ph)...
MANCHIN: ...Admiral Rogers?
ROGERS: I'm personally aware and involved with the director on the national security
issues and the Kaspersky Lab issue, yes sir.
COATS: It wasn't that long ago I was sitting up there talking -- raising issues about
Kaspersky and its position here. And that continues in this new job.
POMPEO: It has risen to the director of the CIA as well, Senator Manchin.
MANCHIN: Great.
(UNKNOWN): He's very concerned about it, sir, and we are focused on it closely.
MANCHIN: Only thing I would ask all of you, if you can give us a report back if you've
swept all of your contractors to make sure they understand the certainty you have, concern
that you have about this and making sure that they can verify to you all that they're not
involved whatsoever with any Kaspersky's hardware. I'm going to switch to a couple different
things because of national security.
But you know, the bottom gangs that we have in the United States, and I know -- we don't
talk about them much. And when you talk about you have MS-13, the Crips, you've got Hells
Angels, Aryan Brotherhood, it goes on and on and on, it's quite a few. What is -- what are we
doing and what is it to your level -- has it been brought to your level the concern we have
with these gangs within our country, really every part of our country?
Anybody on the gangland?
MCCABE: Yes sir. So we spend a lot of time talking about that at the FBI. It's one of our
highest priorities...
MANCHIN: Did the resources go out to each one of these because they're interspersed over
the country?
MCCABE: We do, sir. We have been focused on the gang threat for many years. It -- like --
much like the online pharmacy threat. It continues to change and develop harried we think
it's likely a -- having an impact on elevated violent crime rates across the country, so
we're spending a lot of time focused on that.
... ... ..
COTTON: Inmates are running the asylum.
(LAUGHTER)
COTTON: So, I think everyone in this room and most Americans have come to appreciate the
aggressiveness with which would Russia uses active measures or covert influence operations,
propaganda, call them what you will, as your agencies assess they did in 2016 and in hacking
into those e-mails and releasing them as news reports suggest they did. In the French
election last week -- that's one reason why I sought to revive the Russian active measures
working group in the FY'17 Intelligence Authorization Act.
These activities that will go far beyond elections, I think, as most of our witnesses
know. former director of the CIA, Bob Gates, in his memoir "From the Shadows," detailed
soviet covert influence campaigns designed to slow or thwart the U.S. development of nuclear
delivery systems and warheads, missile-defense systems and employment of intermediate nuclear
range systems to Europe.
Specifically on page 260 of his memoir, he writes "during the period, the soviets mounted
a massive covert action operation, aimed at thwarting INF deployments by NATO. We at CIA
devoted tremendous resources to an effort at the time to uncovering the soviet covert
campaign. Director Casey summarized this extraordinary effort in a paper he sent to Bush,
Schultz, Weinberger and Clark on January 18, 1983. We later published it and circulated it
widely within the government and to the allies, and finally, provided an unclassified version
of the public to use," end quote.
I'd like to thank the CIA for digging up this unclassified version of the document and
providing it to the committee, Soviet Strategy to derail U.S. INF deployment. Specifically,
undermining NATO's solidarity in those deployments. I have asked unanimous consent that it be
included in the hearing transcript and since the inmates are running the asylum, hearing no
objection, we'll include it in the transcript.
(LAUGHTER)
Director Pompeo, earlier this year, Dr. Roy Godson testified that he believed that Russia
was using active measures and covert influence efforts to undermine our nuclear modernization
efforts, our missile defense deployments, and the INF Treaty, in keeping with these past
practices.
To the best of your ability in this setting, would you agree with the assessment that
Russia is likely using such active measures to undermine U.S. nuclear modernization efforts
and missile defenses?
POMPEO: Yes.
COTTON: Thank you.
As I mentioned earlier, the F.Y. '17 Intelligence Authorization Act included two
unclassified provisions that I authored. One would be re-starting that old (inaudible)
Measures Working Group. A second would require additional scrutiny of Russian embassy
officials who travel more than the prescribed distance from their duty station, whether it's
their embassy or a consulate around the United States.
In late 2016, when that bill was on the verge of passing, I personally received calls from
high-ranking Obama administration officials asking me to withdraw them from the bill. I
declined. The bill did not pass. It passed last week as part of the F.Y. '17 spending
bill.
I did not receive any objection from Trump administration officials to include from our
intelligence community.
Director Coats, are you aware of any objection that the Trump administration had to my two
provisions?
COATS: No, I'm not aware of any objection.
COTTON: Director Pompeo?
POMPEO: None.
COTTON: Do you know why the Obama administration objected to those two provisions in late
2016? I would add after the 2016 presidential election.
COATS: Well, it would be pure speculation. I don't -- I couldn't read -- I wasn't able to
read the president's mind then and I don't think I can read it now.
COTTON: Thank you.
I'd like to turn my attention to a very important provision of law. I know that you've
discussed earlier section 702.
Director Rogers, it's my understanding that your agency is undertaking an effort to try to
release some kind of unclassified estimate of the number of U.S. persons who might have been
incidentally collected using 702 techniques. Is that correct?
ROGERS: Sir, we're looking to see if we can quantify something that's of value to people
outside the organization.
COTTON: Would -- would that require you going in and conducting searches of incidental
collection that have been previously unexamined?
ROGERS: That's part of the challenge. How do I generate insight that doesn't in the
process of generating the insight violate the actual tenets that...
(CROSSTALK)
COTTON: So -- so we're -- you're trying to produce an estimate that is designed to protect
privacy rights, but to produce that estimate, you're going to have to violate privacy
rights?
ROGERS: That is a potential part of all of this.
COTTON: It seems hard to do.
ROGERS: Yes, sir. That's why it has taken us a period of time and that's why we're in the
midst of a dialogue.
COTTON: Is it going to be possible to produce that kind of estimate without some degree of
inaccuracy or misleading information, or infringing upon the privacy rights of Americans?
ROGERS: Probably not.
COTTON: If anyone in your agency, or for that matter, Director McCabe, in yours, believes
that there is misconduct or privacy rights are not being protected, they could, I believe
under current law, come to your inspector general; come to your general counsel. I assume you
have open door policies.
ROGERS: Whistleblower protections in addition, yes, sir, and they can come to you.
COTTON: They can come to this committee.
So four -- at least four different avenues. I'm probably missing some, if they believe
there are any abuses in the section 702 (inaudible).
MCCABE (?): And anyone in their chain of command.
COTTON: I would ask that we proceed with caution before producing a report that might
infringe on Americans' privacy rights needlessly, and that might make it even that much
harder to reauthorize a critical program, something that, Director McCabe, your predecessor
last week just characterized, if I can paraphrase, as a must-have program, not a nice-to-have
program.
Thank you.
BURR: Thank you, Senator Cotton.
Senator Harris?
HARRIS: Thank you.
Acting Director McCabe, welcome. I know you've been in this position for only about 48
hours, and I appreciate your candor with this committee during the course of this open
hearing.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Until this point, what was your role in the FBI's investigation into the Russian
hacking of the 2016 election?
MCCABE: I've been the deputy director since February of 2016. So I've had an oversight
role over all of our FBI operational activity, including that investigation.
HARRIS: And now that you're acting director, what will your role be in the
investigation?
MCCABE: Very similar, senior oversight role to understand what our folks are doing and to
make sure they have the resources they need and are getting the direction and the guidance
they need to go forward.
HARRIS: Do you support the idea of a special prosecutor taking over the investigation in
terms of oversight of the investigation, in addition to your role?
MCCABE: Ma'am, that is a question for the Department of Justice and it wouldn't be proper
for me to comment on that.
HARRIS: From your understanding, who at the Department of Justice is in charge of the
investigation?
MCCABE: The deputy attorney general, who serves as acting attorney general for that
investigation. He is in charge.
HARRIS: And have you had conversations with him about the investigation since you've been
in this role?
MCCABE: I have. Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: And when Director Comey was fired, my understanding is he was not present in his
office. He was actually in California. So my question is: Who was in charge of securing his
files and devices when that -- when that information came down that he had been fired?
MCCABE: That's our responsibility, ma'am.
HARRIS: And are you confident that his files and his devices have been secured in a way
that we can maintain whatever information or evidence he has in connection with the
investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. I am.
HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked
Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't
believe that you need any additional resources?
MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced.
HARRIS: And will you commit to this committee that if you do need resources, that you will
come to us, understanding that we would make every effort to get you what you need?
MCCABE: I absolutely will.
HARRIS: Has -- I understand that you've said that the White House, that you have not
talked with the White House about the Russia investigation. Is that correct?
MCCABE: That's correct.
HARRIS: Have you talked with Jeff Sessions about the investigation?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: Have you talked with anyone other than Rod Rosenstein at the Department of Justice
about the investigation?
MCCABE: I don't believe I have -- you know, not recently; obviously, not in that -- not in
this position.
HARRIS: Not in the last 48 hours?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: OK. What protections have been put in place to assure that the good men and women
of the FBI understand that they will not be fired if they aggressively pursue this
investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. So we have very active lines of communication with the team that's --
that's working on this issue. They are -- they have some exemplary and incredibly effective
leaders that they work directly for. And I am confident that those -- that they understand
and are confident in their position moving forward on this investigation, as my
investigators, analysts and professionals staff are in everything we do every day.
HARRIS: And I agree with you. I have no question about the commitment that the men and
women of the FBI have to pursue their mission. But will you commit to me that you will
directly communicate in some way now that these occurrences have happened and Director Comey
has been fired? Will you commit to me that given this changed circumstance, that you will
find a way to directly communicate with those men and women to assure them that they will not
be fired simply for aggressively pursuing this investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Thank you.
And how do you believe we need to handle, to the extent that it exists, any crisis of
confidence in the leadership of the FBI, given the firing of Director Comey?
MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI.
That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that.
(LAUGHTER)
You know, it was completely within the president's authority to take the steps that he
did. We all understand that. We expect that he and the Justice Department will work to find a
suitable replacement and a permanent director, and we look forward to supporting whoever that
person is, whether they begin as an interim director or a permanently selected director.
This -- organization in its entirety will be completely committed to helping that person
get off to a great start and do what they need to do.
HARRIS: And do you believe that there will be any pause in the investigation during this
interim period, where we have a number of people who are in acting positions of
authority?
MCCABE: No, ma'am. That is my job right now to ensure that the men and women who work for
the FBI stay focused on the threats; stay focused on the issues that are of so much
importance to this country; continue to protect the American people and uphold the
Constitution. And I will ensure that that happens.
HARRIS: I appreciate that. Thank you.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
BURR: Thank you.
Senator King?
Second round, five minutes each.
Senator Wyden?
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to the question I asked you, Director Pompeo. And I went out and
reviewed the response that you gave to me. And of course, what I'm concerned about is the
Sally Yates warning to the White House that Michael Flynn could be blackmailed by the
Russians.
And you said you didn't have any first-hand indication of it. Did you have any indication
-- second-hand, any sense at all that the national security adviser might be vulnerable to
blackmail by the Russians? That is a yes or no question.
POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I
regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence
investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign
intelligence organization.
And I'll add only this, I was not intending to be clever by using the term "first-hand." I
had no second-hand or third-hand knowledge of that conversation either.
WYDEN: So with respect to the CIA, were there any discussion with General Flynn at
all?
POMPEO: With respect to what sir? He was for a period of time the national security
advisor.
WYDEN: Topics that could have put at risk the security and the well being of the American
people. I mean I'm just finding it very hard to swallow that you all had no discussions with
the national security advisor.
POMPEO: I spoke with the national security advisor. He was the national security advisor.
He was present for the daily brief on many occasions and we talked about all the topics we
spoke to the President about.
WYDEN: But nothing relating to matters that could have compromised the security of the
United States? POMPEO: Sir I can't recall every conversation with General Flynn during that
time period.
WYDEN: We're going to ask some more about it in closed session this afternoon. Admiral
Rogers, let me ask you about a technical question that I think is particularly troubling and
that is the S.S. 7 question in the technology threat. Last week the Department of Homeland
Security published a lengthy study about the impact on the U.S. government of mobile phone
security flaws. The report confirmed what I have been warning about for quite some time,
which is the significance of cyber security vulnerabilities associated with a signaling
system seven report says the department believes, and I quote, that all U.S. carriers are
vulnerable to these exploits, resulting in risks to national security, the economy and the
federal governments ability to reliably execute national security functions. These
vulnerabilities can be exploited by criminals, terrorists and nation state actors and foreign
intelligence organizations.
Do you all share the concerns of the Department of Human -- the Homeland Security
Department about the severity of these vulnerabilities and what ought to be done right now to
get the government and the private sector to be working together more clearly and in a
coherent plan to deal with these monumental risks. These are risks that we're going to face
with terrorists and hackers and threats. And I think the federal communications commission
has been treading water on this and I'd like to see what you want to do to really take charge
of this to deal what is an enormous vulnerability to the security of this country?
ROGERS: Sure. I hear the concern. It's a widely deployed technology in the mobile segment.
I share the concern the Department of Homeland security in their role kind of as the lead
federal agency associated with cyber and support from the federal government to the private
sector as overall responsibility here.
We are trying to provide at the national security agency our expertise to help generate
insights about the nature of the vulnerability, the nature of the problem. Partnering with
DHS, talking to the private sector. There's a couple of specific things from a technology
stand point that we're looking at in multiple forms that the government has created
partnering with the private sector.
I'm not smart, I apologize about all of the specifics of the DHS effort. I can take that
for the record if you'd like.
WYDEN: All right. I just want to respond before we break to Senator Cotton's comments with
respect to section 702. Mr. Director, glad to see my tax reform partner back in this role.
You know Mr. Director that I think it's critical the American people know how many innocent
law abiding Americans are being swept up in the program. The argument that producing an
estimate of the number is in itself a violation of privacy, is I think a far fetched argue
has been made for years. I and others who believe that we can have security and liberty, that
they're not mutually exclusive have always believed that this argument that you're going to
be invading peoples privacy doesn't add up. We have to have that number. Are we going to get
it? Are we going to get it in time so we can have a debate that shows that those of us who
understand there are threats coming from overseas, and we support the effort to deal with
those threats as part of 702. That we are not going to have American's privacy rights
indiscriminately swept up.
We need that number. When will we get it?
COATS: Senator as you recall, during my confirmation hearing, we had this discussion. I
promised to you that I would -- if confirmed and I was, talk (ph) to NSA indeed with Admiral
Rogers, try to understand -- better understand why it was so difficult to come to a specific
number. I -- I did go out to NSA. I was hosted by Admiral Rogers. We spent significant time
talking about that. And I learned of the complexity of reaching that number. I think the --
the statements that had been made by Senator Cotton are very relevant statements as to
that.
Clearly, what I have learned is that a breach of privacy has to be made against American
people have to be made in order to determine whether or not they breached privacy. So, it --
it -- there is a anomaly there. They're -- they're -- they're issues of duplication.
I know that a -- we're underway in terms of setting up a time with this committee I
believe in June -- as early as June to address -- get into that issue and to address that,
and talk through the complexity of why it's so difficult to say...
WYDEN: I'm...
COATS: ...this is specifically when we can get you the -- the number and what the number
is. So, I -- I believe -- I believe -- we are committed -- we are committed to a special
meeting with the committee to try to go through this -- this particular issue.
But I cannot give you a date because I -- I -- and -- and a number because the -- I
understand the complexity of it now and why it's so difficult for Admiral Rogers to say this
specific number is the number.
WYDEN: I'm -- I'm well over my time. The point really is privacy advocates and
technologists say that it's possible to get the number. If they say it, and the government is
not saying it, something is really out of synch.
You've got people who want to work with you. We must get on with this and to have a real
debate about 702 that ensures that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We have
to have that number.
"Neither Robert Mueller's team nor the US Senate Intelligence Committee has bothered to
contact WikiLeaks or me, in any manner, ever." -- @Julian Assange, Twitter, September 20,
2017
This one tweet completely invalidates the notion that Robert Mueller has been conducting a
legitimate investigation into the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential
elections. Regardless of the degree of suspicion in which Assange is held, there is
absolutely no excuse for the people responsible for investigating Russia not to have had any
interaction of any kind whatsoever with one of the central characters in the official
narrative about what Russia is supposed to have done.
"Prosecutors have been avoiding Assange because he has said multiple times that the
Russian government is not the source of the DNC leaks."
If his job was to find out what actually happened last year, Mueller would have spoken
with Assange personally, and he would have done so long ago. But finding out what happened
last year is not Mueller's job. Mueller's job is to enforce a pre-existing narrative. It is
painfully obvious at this point that the Senate Intelligence Committee and Mueller's team
have been avoiding Assange the way Hillary Clinton avoids personal responsibility because
Assange has said multiple times that the Russian government is not the source of the DNC
leaks or the Podesta emails released last year.
If this is an actual investigation into an actual alleged crime, then Assange is
necessarily either (A) a source of useful information, (B) a person of interest, or (C) a
suspect in the crime itself. None of those allows for any excuse for not speaking to him. If
it's either (A) or (B), he's a potential goldmine of information for their investigation to
make use of. If it's (C), they can grill him and try to get him to give something up. Even
someone caught on video committing a murder eventually gets interviewed by the law
enforcement officials responsible for investigating their case to establish the accused's
side of the story; if they didn't, they'd be committing malpractice. Since they did not seek
to question Assange early and extensively, this cannot possibly be an actual investigation
into an actual allegation.
"If his job was to find out what actually happened last year, Mueller would have spoken
with Assange personally long ago."
The fact of the matter is that Russia has been America's Public Enemy Number One since the
end of World War Two, and for that reason there is a longstanding tradition in the United
States of tarring political enemies with baseless accusations of Kremlin ties. Establishment
loyalists have been accusing WikiLeaks of being in bed with Russia since long before any
election meddling accusations surfaced, despite the organization's long and continued record
of publishing critical documents related to the Russian Federation. They have been doing so
not because there is any basis for such accusations, but because WikiLeaks is their political
enemy. There is nothing more hostile to America's pernicious unelected power establishment
than unauthorized truth-telling, and WikiLeaks is currently the world's leader in
unauthorized truth-telling. It is that simple.
Mueller's investigation has no interest in finding the truth. Mueller's investigation is
actively avoiding all potential sources of truth. The US intelligence community to which
Mueller is loyal is the right arm of America's unelected power establishment, and due to
conflicting economic and geopolitical interests things have been coming to a head with Russia
for a long time. The neoconservative ideology which governs America's foreign policy is
geared first and foremost toward preventing the rise of another rival superpower, and the
former seat of the Soviet Union will always be first on the list of suspects.
"WikiLeaks is currently the world's leader in unauthorized truth-telling. It is that
simple.
Mueller's investigation has no interest in finding the truth."
Things are not going as planned for America's true rulers. Not in Syria, not in North
Korea, and certainly not in Russia.
***People's unprecedented ability to network and share information due to rising internet
literacy and access has caused a severe breakdown in the propaganda machine which holds their
entire prison together, and people are waking up to their manipulations***
.
(Hence the move to eliminate net neurtrality as I posted supra)
These creeps are on the back foot now. Keep fighting and wrest control of the world away
from the plutocratic sociopaths who are trying to deceive and enslave us"
"... The practical effect of Mueller's acquisition of the transition emails could be devastating to White House staff who once worked for the transition. Many of them have been interviewed by the FBI while no doubt being ignorant of the fact that the FBI had read their emails. Stated differently, the FBI was in a position to lead Trump White House staff members into a lying trap -- just as it did with retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn -- by asking them questions to which the FBI already had the answers. ..."
"... Lying traps are reprehensible, but they're lawful. And they are not unique to Mueller's practices; it is the way the feds work today. Can the FBI get away with getting the Trump team's emails? In a word: yes. This investigation is not going away soon. ..."
Within hours of his victory in last year's presidential election, Donald Trump dispatched
his lawyers to establish a nonprofit corporation to manage his transition from private life to
the presidency. This was done pursuant to a federal statute that provides for taxpayer-funded
assistance to the newly elected -- but not yet inaugurated -- president. The statutory term for
the corporation is the presidential transition team, or PTT.
In addition to paying the PTT's bills, the General Services Administration, which manages
all nonmilitary federal property, provided the PTT with government computers, software and a
computer service provider. During the course of the PTT's existence, the folks who worked for
it sent or received tens of thousands of emails. The PTT ceased to exist upon Trump's
inauguration, and a receiver was hired to wind it down.
Last weekend, a lawyer for the receiver revealed a letter he sent to Congress complaining
that special counsel Robert Mueller -- who is investigating whether there was any agreement
between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that resulted in the now-well-known efforts by
Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election -- dispatched FBI
agents to the GSA looking for copies of all the PTT's emails and that the GSA surrendered
them.
How did this happen?
When the FBI is looking for documents or tangible things, it has several legal tools
available. They range in their disruptive nature from a simple request to a grand jury subpoena
to a judicially authorized search warrant.
The FBI request is the easiest for the government, and if FBI agents ask you for something and
you give it to them, you cannot later be heard to complain that your privacy rights regarding
the things you surrendered were violated. If they seize your documents pursuant to a subpoena
or a warrant, they normally get to use what they have seized.
The issue becomes more complex when the FBI comes calling for documents of yours that are
legally in the hands of a custodian -- such as your physician, lawyer, banker or accountant. In
the case of Trump's PTT and Mueller's wish for all PTT emails, the sought-after data -- the
electronic copies of all the PTT's emails -- were in custody of the GSA.
Anyone who has ever used a GSA computer is familiar with the warning that appears on the
screen at the time of each use. It says that there is no right to privacy in the communications
sent or received, as the electronic versions of those communications are the property of the
federal government. This, no doubt, is the reason Hillary Clinton infamously used her husband's
computer servers during her four years at the State Department rather than the
government's.
We do not know whether Mueller's FBI agents merely requested the electronic data from the GSA
or his prosecutors obtained a grand jury subpoena. If it was a simple FBI request and if the
GSA simply complied, that was a lawful acquisition by the FBI of the PTT emails, yet in that
case, the GSA violated its fiduciary duty to inform the PTT of the request before it complied
with it.
If the FBI came calling on the GSA with a grand jury subpoena, that means Mueller's team
must have presented evidence under oath to a grand jury and demonstrated that the sought-after
items would more likely than not be helpful to the investigation. When a grand jury issues a
subpoena to a custodian of records -- no matter who the custodian is -- it is the moral and
fiduciary duty of the custodian, not the government, to inform the owner of the subpoenaed
items that a subpoena has been received.
In some cases, it is also the legal duty of the custodian to inform the owner, but it
apparently was not in this case. As far as we can tell, there was no written agreement between
the GSA and the PTT requiring the GSA to inform the PTT of any document requests or subpoenas.
Had such a request been revealed, the lawyer for the receiver of the PTT would have had an
opportunity to challenge the government before a judge. Without that notice, there is no time
for the challenge.
Until 1986, it was the duty of the government when seeking documents or tangible things from
a custodian to inform the owner, as well as the custodian, of its intent. That fair procedure
gave the owner of the records time to challenge the government before a judge. But the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (which has nothing whatsoever to do with
protecting privacy), enacted at the dawn of the digital age, did away with that
requirement.
Now if the custodian remains silent in the face of an FBI request or a grand jury subpoena,
the owner of the documents loses his opportunity to keep them from the government. That is what
happened here.
But there is more.
The practical effect of Mueller's acquisition of the transition emails could be
devastating to White House staff who once worked for the transition. Many of them have been
interviewed by the FBI while no doubt being ignorant of the fact that the FBI had read their
emails. Stated differently, the FBI was in a position to lead Trump White House staff members
into a lying trap -- just as it did with retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn -- by asking them
questions to which the FBI already had the answers.
Lying traps are reprehensible, but they're lawful. And they are not unique to Mueller's
practices; it is the way the feds work today. Can the FBI get away with getting the Trump
team's emails? In a word: yes. This investigation is not going away soon.
Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.
Judge Waterboy is back again this week, serving the Establishment by propagandizing against
Russia while supposedly giving readers expert guidance on American governmental and legal
processes.
" .. special counsel Robert Mueller -- who is investigating whether there was any
agreement between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that resulted in the now-well-known
efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election --
"
Where does one go to read any specification of and see any evidence for these
"now-well-known efforts"? Has anyone who still watches TV seen that question put to Mr.
Napolitano?
Notice, too, how the language has been massaged since Mr. Napolitano's column published
here on December 7:
" .. the no-nonsense special counsel investigating whether any Americans aided the Russian
government in its now well-known interference in the 2016 American presidential election ..
"
Rather than copy/cut/paste, the author has taken the time to alter his words:
any Americans >>> the Trump campaign
Russian government >>> Russian intelligence
interference >>> affect the outcome
Mr. Napolitano may be giving himself room to navigate the evolving scandals in Washington,
where we are invited to take sides in the intramural battle between Team Red and Team Blue
or, for the relatively sophisticated, President Trump and Deep State. But no matter how that
all turns out, the processes and this article about them serve to Otherize another people and
state from which our rulers can keep us safe and free.
"Can the FBI Get Away with Getting Trump Team Emails?"
They already have. We will hear more bluster from Representatives Gowdy and Jordan but as
always in the past nothing will happen. I have lost count, but these two have been
grandstanding for years on all manner of injustice .without one victory.
Again with "now-well-known efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the
2016 presidential election"?
The meme is well known. But approximately half of us know it is a lie. Judge Swamp
Creature knows it's a lie but (repeatedly) repeats it anyway. What's in it for you Judge?
What is now well known is that Mueller is a political assassin, hired to lead a soft coup
against an elected president.
Why bother to ask these silly questions? FBI gets away with anything and everything it wants
to do. When a mob owns ALL the blackmail files, nobody can stop it. There is no such thing as
"law". There is only bullets, bombs and blackmail.
Mr. Napolitano is taking a radical position when he confidently claims that it is legal for
the FBI to secretly read transition emails without a warrant or subpoena, or, indeed, any
official authority whatsover. It seems the FBI simply asked GSA for the emails, rather than
getting a subpoena -- that's the big point here, since of course GSA has to hand them over if
there is a subpoena, but a court has to authorize it then. So here, the FBI had no more
authority than any other agency in the executive branch. Mr. Napolitano's position is that
that's fine. If so, it would equally have been okay for the GSA to give the Secretary of
Agriculture, the IRS Commissioner, or President Obama permission to secretly view the Trump
transition team's emails during the transition. Indeed, the FBI was not acting with any
authority in this case, just a request, so Napolitano's claim is that the GSA could have
given the emails to Nancy Pelosi if she'd asked. Is that really the position you want to
take? It's absurd. If that were the law, then no winning presidential candidate would ever
want to make use of transition facilities and computer systems, since it would be to allow
the opposition party open access to all of his plans.
who is investigating whether there was any agreement between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin that resulted in the now-well-known efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the
outcome of the 2016 presidential election
For true? Great. Since they're so well-known, please describe them in detail.Oh, you mean
nobody's got any idea WTF those efforts were? Yeah, thought so.
Even assuming a GSA computer warns its user ( everytime?) that data stored on it is
government property how does that allow Mueller or anyone else to seize the emails of the
party not using a GSA computer? No warning was given to the party receiving an e-mail or
replying to an email sent from a government computer.
I recognize a wiretap records both ends of a telephone call or email but that requires a
judge to issue the warrant ( and we can hope the judge has more respect for the Constitution
than the creep writing this does).
India was naughty as well and Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley ought to have taken the Indian
ambassador's name down as well. Maybe she'll even declare she won't ever set foot in India
again. Her relatives there will breathe sighs of relief!
"... With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people. ..."
"... They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats. ..."
"... The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. ..."
"... Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43). ..."
"... This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer. ..."
"... The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth ! ..."
"... Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades. ..."
"... "Wow – is there ever negative!" ..."
"... You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'. ..."
"... My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece ..."
"... "Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor." ..."
"... Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\ ..."
"... It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's! ..."
"... E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop. ..."
"... The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.) ..."
On America's 'long emergency' of recession, globalization, and identity politics.
Can a people recover from an excursion into unreality? The USA's sojourn into an alternative universe of the mind accelerated
sharply after Wall Street nearly detonated the global financial system in 2008. That debacle was only one manifestation of an array
of accumulating threats to the postmodern order, which include the burdens of empire, onerous debt, population overshoot, fracturing
globalism, worries about energy, disruptive technologies, ecological havoc, and the specter of climate change.
A sense of gathering crisis, which I call the long emergency , persists. It is systemic and existential. It calls into
question our ability to carry on "normal" life much farther into this century, and all the anxiety that attends it is hard for the
public to process. It manifested itself first in finance because that was the most abstract and fragile of all the major activities
we depend on for daily life, and therefore the one most easily tampered with and shoved into criticality by a cadre of irresponsible
opportunists on Wall Street. Indeed, a lot of households were permanently wrecked after the so-called Great Financial Crisis of 2008,
despite official trumpet blasts heralding "recovery" and the dishonestly engineered pump-up of capital markets since then.
With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is
no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis
and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting
freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire.
A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership
is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people.
Bad ideas flourish in this nutrient medium of unresolved crisis. Lately, they actually dominate the scene on every side. A species
of wishful thinking that resembles a primitive cargo cult grips the technocratic class, awaiting magical rescue remedies that promise
to extend the regime of Happy Motoring, consumerism, and suburbia that makes up the armature of "normal" life in the USA.
They chatter
about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace
problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics
-- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth
on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats.
The non-technocratic cohort of the thinking class squanders its waking hours on a quixotic campaign to destroy the remnant of
an American common culture and, by extension, a reviled Western civilization they blame for the failure in our time to establish
a utopia on earth. By the logic of the day, "inclusion" and "diversity" are achieved by forbidding the transmission of ideas, shutting
down debate, and creating new racially segregated college dorms. Sexuality is declared to not be biologically determined, yet so-called
cis-gendered persons (whose gender identity corresponds with their sex as detected at birth) are vilified by dint of
not being "other-gendered" -- thereby thwarting the pursuit of happiness of persons self-identified as other-gendered. Casuistry
anyone?
The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads
and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming
human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual
despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.
In case you haven't been paying attention to the hijinks on campus -- the attacks on reason, fairness, and common decency, the
kangaroo courts, diversity tribunals, assaults on public speech and speakers themselves -- here is the key take-away: it's not about
ideas or ideologies anymore; it's purely about the pleasures of coercion, of pushing other people around. Coercion is fun and exciting!
In fact, it's intoxicating, and rewarded with brownie points and career advancement. It's rather perverse that this passion for tyranny
is suddenly so popular on the liberal left.
Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor
pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that
unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right
of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43).
The new and false idea that something labeled "hate speech" -- labeled by whom? -- is equivalent to violence floated out of the
graduate schools on a toxic cloud of intellectual hysteria concocted in the laboratory of so-called "post-structuralist" philosophy,
where sundry body parts of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, and Gilles Deleuze were sewn onto a brain comprised of
one-third each Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky, and Tupac Shakur to create a perfect Frankenstein monster of thought. It all boiled down
to the proposition that the will to power negated all other human drives and values, in particular the search for truth. Under this
scheme, all human relations were reduced to a dramatis personae of the oppressed and their oppressors, the former generally
"people of color" and women, all subjugated by whites, mostly males. Tactical moves in politics among these self-described "oppressed"
and "marginalized" are based on the credo that the ends justify the means (the Alinsky model).
This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is
to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the
social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual
boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and
administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear
puzzling to the casual observer.
I would account for it as the psychological displacement among this political cohort of their shame, disappointment, and despair
over the outcome of the civil rights campaign that started in the 1960s and formed the core of progressive ideology. It did not bring
about the hoped-for utopia. The racial divide in America is starker now than ever, even after two terms of a black president. Today,
there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress
on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. The recent flash points of racial conflict -- Ferguson, the Dallas police ambush, the
Charleston church massacre, et cetera -- don't have to be rehearsed in detail here to make the point that there is a great deal of
ill feeling throughout the land, and quite a bit of acting out on both sides.
The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another. And that is exactly why
a black separatism movement arose as an alternative at the time, led initially by such charismatic figures as Malcolm X and Stokely
Carmichael. Some of that was arguably a product of the same youthful energy that drove the rest of the Sixties counterculture: adolescent
rebellion. But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with
a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively
nullifies the concept of a national common culture.
What follows from these dynamics is the deflection of all ideas that don't feed a narrative of power relations between oppressors
and victims, with the self-identified victims ever more eager to exercise their power to coerce, punish, and humiliate their self-identified
oppressors, the "privileged," who condescend to be abused to a shockingly masochistic degree. Nobody stands up to this organized
ceremonial nonsense. The punishments are too severe, including the loss of livelihood, status, and reputation, especially in the
university. Once branded a "racist," you're done. And venturing to join the oft-called-for "honest conversation about race" is certain
to invite that fate.
Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor. Hung out to dry economically,
this class of whites fell into many of the same behaviors as the poor blacks before them: absent fathers, out-of-wedlock births,
drug abuse. Then the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 wiped up the floor with the middle-middle class above them, foreclosing on their
homes and futures, and in their desperation many of these people became Trump voters -- though I doubt that Trump himself truly understood
how this all worked exactly. However, he did see that the white middle class had come to identify as yet another victim group, allowing
him to pose as their champion.
The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of
stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life
is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of
the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud
that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine
and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth !
Life in this milieu of immersive dishonesty drives citizens beyond cynicism to an even more desperate state of mind. The suffering
public ends up having no idea what is really going on, what is actually happening. The toolkit of the Enlightenment -- reason, empiricism
-- doesn't work very well in this socioeconomic hall of mirrors, so all that baggage is discarded for the idea that reality is just
a social construct, just whatever story you feel like telling about it. On the right, Karl Rove expressed this point of view some
years ago when he bragged, of the Bush II White House, that "we make our own reality." The left says nearly the same thing in the
post-structuralist malarkey of academia: "you make your own reality." In the end, both sides are left with a lot of bad feelings
and the belief that only raw power has meaning.
Erasing psychological boundaries is a dangerous thing. When the rackets finally come to grief -- as they must because their operations
don't add up -- and the reckoning with true price discovery commences at the macro scale, the American people will find themselves
in even more distress than they've endured so far. This will be the moment when either nobody has any money, or there is plenty of
worthless money for everyone. Either way, the functional bankruptcy of the nation will be complete, and nothing will work anymore,
including getting enough to eat. That is exactly the moment when Americans on all sides will beg someone to step up and push them
around to get their world working again. And even that may not avail.
James Howard Kunstler's many books include The Geography of Nowhere, The Long Emergency, Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking,
Technology, and the Fate of the Nation , and the World Made by Hand novel series. He blogs on Mondays and Fridays at
Kunstler.com .
I think I need to go listen to an old-fashioned Christmas song now.
The ability to be financially, or at least resource, sustaining is the goal of many I know since we share a lack of confidence
in any of our institutions. We can only hope that God might look down with compassion on us, but He's not in the practical plan
of how to feed and sustain ourselves when things play out to their inevitable end. Having come from a better time, we joke about
our dystopian preparations, self-conscious about our "overreaction," but preparing all the same.
Look at it this way: Germany had to be leveled and its citizens reduced to abject penury, before Volkswagen could become the world's
biggest car company, and autobahns built throughout the world. It will be darkest before the dawn, and hopefully, that light that
comes after, won't be the miniature sunrise of a nuclear conflagration.
An excellent summary and bleak reminder of what our so-called civilization has become. How do we extricate ourselves from this
strange death spiral?
I have long suspected that we humans are creatures of our own personal/group/tribal/national/global fables and mythologies. We
are compelled by our genes, marrow, and blood to tell ourselves stories of our purpose and who we are. It is time for new mythologies
and stories of "who we are". This bizarre hyper-techno all-for-profit world needs a new story.
"The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another."
Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants
from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American,
influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made
by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades.
Hey Jim, I know you love to blame Wall Street and the Republicans for the GFC. I remember back in '08 you were urging Democrats
to blame it all on Republicans to help Obama win. But I have news for you. It wasn't Wall Street that caused the GFC. The crisis
actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks to relax mortgage
underwriting standards. This was done at the behest of left wing activists who claimed (without evidence, of course) that the
standards discriminated against minorities. The result was an effective repeal of all underwriting standards and an explosion
of real estate speculation with borrowed money. Speculation with borrowed money never ends well.
I have to laugh, too, when you say that it's perverse that the passion for tyranny is popular on the left. Have you ever heard
of the French Revolution? How about the USSR? Communist China? North Korea? Et cetera.
Leftism is leftism. Call it Marxism, Communism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, or what have you. The ideology is the
same. Only the tactics and methods change. Destroy the evil institutions of marriage, family, and religion, and Man's innate goodness
will shine forth, and the glorious Godless utopia will naturally result.
Of course, the father of lies is ultimately behind it all. "He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning."
When man turns his back on God, nothing good happens. That's the most fundamental problem in Western society today. Not to
say that there aren't other issues, but until we return to God, there's not much hope for improvement.
Hmm. I just wandered over here by accident. Being a construction contractor, I don't know enough about globalization, academia,
or finance to evaluate your assertions about those realms. But being in a biracial family, and having lived, worked, and worshiped
equally in white and black communities, I can evaluate your statements about social justice, race, and civil rights.
Long story short, you pick out fringe liberal ideas, misrepresent them as mainstream among liberals, and shoot them down. Casuistry,
anyone?
You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated
now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial
divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt
"shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'.
I get that this column is a quick toss-off before the holiday, and that your strength is supposed to be in your presentation,
not your ideas. For me, it's a helpful way to rehearse debunking common tropes that I'll encounter elsewhere.
But, really, your readers deserve better, and so do the people you misrepresent. We need bad liberal ideas to be critiqued
while they're still on the fringe. But by calling fringe ideas mainstream, you discredit yourself, misinform your readers, and
contribute to stereotypes both of liberals and of conservatives. I'm looking for serious conservative critiques that help me take
a second look at familiar ideas. I won't be back.
I disagree, NoahK, that the whole is incohesive, and I also disagree that these are right-wing talking points.
The theme of this piece is the long crisis in the US, its nature and causes. At no point does this essay, despite it stream
of consciousness style, veer away from that theme. Hence it is cohesive.
As for the right wing charge, though it is true, to be sure, that Kunstler's position is in many respects classically conservative
-- he believes for example that there should be a national consensus on certain fundamentals, such as whether or not there are
two sexes (for the most part), or, instead, an infinite variety of sexes chosen day by day at whim -- you must have noticed that
he condemned both the voluntarism of Karl Rove AND the voluntarism of the post-structuralist crowd.
My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either
of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is
why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece. QED.
This malaise is rooted in human consciousness that when reflecting on itself celebrating its capacity for apperception suffers
from the tension that such an inquiry, such an inward glance produces. In a word, the capacity for the human being to be aware
of his or herself as an intelligent being capable of reflecting on aspects of reality through the artful manipulation of symbols
engenders this tension, this angst.
Some will attempt to extinguish this inner tension through intoxication while others through the thrill of war, and it has
been played out since the dawn of man and well documented when the written word emerged.
The malaise which Mr. Kunstler addresses as the problem of our times is rooted in our existence from time immemorial. But the
problem is not only existential but ontological. It is rooted in our being as self-aware creatures. Thus no solution avails itself
as humanity in and of itself is the problem. Each side (both right and left) seeks its own anodyne whether through profligacy
or intolerance, and each side mans the barricades to clash experiencing the adrenaline rush that arises from the perpetual call
to arms.
"Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor."
And to whom do we hand
the tab for this? Globalization is a word. It is a concept, a talking point. Globalization is oligarchy by another name. Unfortunately,
under-educated, deplorable, Americans; regardless of party affiliation/ideology have embraced. And the most ironic part?
Russia
and China (the eventual surviving oligarchies) will eventually have to duke it out to decide which superpower gets to make the
USA it's b*tch (excuse prison reference, but that's where we're headed folks).
And one more irony. Only in American, could Christianity,
which was grew from concepts like compassion, generosity, humility, and benevolence; be re-branded and 'weaponized' to further
greed, bigotry, misogyny, intolerance, and violence/war. Americans fiddled (over same sex marriage, abortion, who has to bake
wedding cakes, and who gets to use which public restroom), while the oligarchs burned the last resources (natural, financial,
and even legal).
"Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case
for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963."
Spoken like a white guy who has zero contact with black people. I mean, even a little bit of research and familiarity would
give lie to the idea that blacks are more pessimistic about life today than in the 1960's.
Black millenials are the most optimistic group of Americans about the future. Anyone who has spent any significant time around
older black people will notice that you don't hear the rose colored memories of the past. Black people don't miss the 1980's,
much less the 1950's. Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much
better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\
It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute
ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard
telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's!
Here is the direct quote;
"In my inaugural address, I remarked that just 60 years earlier, my father might not have been served in a D.C. restaurant
-- at least not certain of them. There were no black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Very few black judges. Shoot, as Larry Wilmore
pointed out last week, a lot of folks didn't even think blacks had the tools to be a quarterback. Today, former Bull Michael Jordan
isn't just the greatest basketball player of all time -- he owns the team. (Laughter.) When I was graduating, the main black hero
on TV was Mr. T. (Laughter.) Rap and hip hop were counterculture, underground. Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyoncé
runs the world. (Laughter.) We're no longer only entertainers, we're producers, studio executives. No longer small business owners
-- we're CEOs, we're mayors, representatives, Presidents of the United States. (Applause.)
I am not saying gaps do not persist. Obviously, they do. Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don't worry -- I'm going to
get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one
moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn't know ahead of time who you were going to be -- what nationality,
what gender, what race, whether you'd be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into -- you wouldn't choose 100
years ago. You wouldn't choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You'd choose right now. If you had to choose a time
to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, "young, gifted, and black" in America, you would choose right now. (Applause.)"
I love reading about how the Community Reinvestment Act was the catalyst of all that is wrong in the world. As someone in the
industry the issue was actually twofold. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act turned the mortgage securities market into
a casino with the underlying actual debt instruments multiplied through the use of additional debt instruments tied to the performance
but with no actual underlying value. These securities were then sold around the world essentially infecting the entire market.
In order that feed the beast, these NON GOVERNMENT loans had their underwriting standards lowered to rediculous levels. If you
run out of qualified customers, just lower the qualifications. Government loans such as FHA, VA, and USDA were avoided because
it was easier to qualify people with the new stuff. And get paid. The short version is all of the incentives that were in place
at the time, starting with the Futures Act, directly led to the actions that culminated in the Crash. So yes, it was the government,
just a different piece of legislation.
Kunstler itemizing the social and economic pathologies in the United States is not enough. Because there are other models that
demonstrate it didn't have to be this way.
E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany
has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution
of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to
maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop.
The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was.
Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites.
(E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.)
P.S. About the notionally high U.S. GDP. Factor out the TRILLIONS inexplicably hoovered up by the pathological health care
system, the metastasized and sanctified National Security State (with its Global Cop shenanigans) and the cronied-up Ponzi scheme
of electron-churn financialization ginned up by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Banksters, and then see how much GDP that reflects
the actual wealth of the middle class is left over.
Right-Wing Dittoheads and Fox Watchers love to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. It allows them to blame both poor black people
AND the government. The truth is that many parties were to blame.
One of the things I love about this rag is that almost all of the comments are included.
You may be sure that similar commenting privilege doesn't exist most anywhere else.
Any disfavor regarding the supposed bleakness with the weak hearted souls aside, Mr K's broadside seems pretty spot on to me.
I think the author overlooks the fact that government over the past 30 to 40 years has been tilting the playing field ever more
towards the uppermost classes and against the middle class. The evisceration of the middle class is plain to see.
If the the common man had more money and security, lots of our current intrasocial conflicts would be far less intense.
Andrew Imlay: You provide a thoughtful corrective to one of Kunstler's more hyperbolic claims. And you should know that his jeremiad
doesn't represent usual fare at TAC. So do come back.
Whether or not every one of Kunstler's assertions can withstand a rigorous fact-check, he is a formidable rhetorician. A generous
serving of Weltschmerz is just what the season calls for.
America is stupefied from propaganda on steroids for, largely from the right wing, 25? years of Limbaugh, Fox, etc etc etc Clinton
hate x 10, "weapons of mass destruction", "they hate us because we are free", birtherism, death panels, Jade Helm, pedophile pizza, and more Clinton hate porn.
Americans have been taught to worship the wealthy regardless of how they got there. Americans have been taught they are "Exceptional" (better, smarter, more godly than every one else) in spite of outward appearances.
Americans are under educated and encouraged to make decisions based on emotion from constant barrage of extra loud advertising
from birth selling illusion.
Americans brain chemistry is most likely as messed up as the rest of their bodies from junk or molested food. Are they even
capable of normal thought?
Donald Trump has convinced at least a third of Americans that only he, Fox, Breitbart and one or two other sources are telling
the Truth, every one else is lying and that he is their friend.
Is it possible we are just plane doomed and there's no way out?
I loathe the cotton candy clown and his Quislings; however, I must admit, his presence as President of the United States has forced
everyone (left, right, religious, non-religious) to look behind the curtain. He has done more to dis-spell the idealism of both
liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, rich and poor, than any other elected official in history. The sheer amount
of mind-numbing absurdity resulting from a publicity stunt that got out of control ..I am 70 and I have seen a lot. This is beyond
anything I could ever imagine. America is not going to improve or even remain the same. It is in a 4 year march into worse, three
years to go.
Mr. Kuntzler has an honest and fairly accurate assessment of the situation. And as usual, the liberal audience that TAC is trying
so hard to reach, is tossing out their usual talking points whilst being in denial of the situation.
The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives,
from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national
dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything.
Kunstler must have had a good time writing this, and I had a good time reading it. Skewed perspective, wild overstatement, and
obsessive cherry-picking of the rare checkable facts are mixed with a little eye of newt and toe of frog and smothered in a oar
and roll of rhetoric that was thrilling to be immersed in. Good work!
aah, same old Kunstler, slightly retailored for the Trump years.
for those of you familiar with him, remember his "peak oil" mania from the late 00s and early 2010s? every blog post was about
it. every new year was going to be IT: the long emergency would start, people would be Mad Maxing over oil supplies cos prices
at the pump would be $10 a gallon or somesuch.
in this new rant, i did a control-F for "peak oil" and hey, not a mention. I guess even cranks like Kunstler know when to give
a tired horse a rest.
Kunstler once again waxes eloquent on the American body politic. Every word rings true, except when it doesn't. At times poetic,
at other times paranoid, Kunstler does us a great service by pointing a finger at the deepest pain points in America, any one
of which could be the geyser that brings on catastrophic failure.
However, as has been pointed out, he definitely does not hang out with black people. For example, the statement:
But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common
culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies
the concept of a national common culture.
The notion of a 'national common culture' is interesting but pretty much a fantasy that never existed, save colonial times.
Yet Kunstler's voice is one that must be heard, even if he is mostly tuning in to the widespread radicalism on both ends of
the spectrum, albeit in relatively small numbers. Let's face it, people are in the streets marching, yelling, and hating and mass
murders keep happening, with the regularity of Old Faithful. And he makes a good point about academia loosing touch with reality
much of the time. He's spot on about the false expectations of what technology can do for the economy, which is inflated with
fiat currency and God knows how many charlatans and hucksters. And yes, the white working class is feeling increasingly like a
'victim group.'
While Kunstler may be more a poet than a lawyer, more songwriter than historian, my gut feeling is that America had better
take notice of him, as The American ship of state is being swept by a ferocious tide and the helmsman is high on Fentanyl (made
in China).
Re: The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act
Here we go again with this rotting zombie which rises from its grave no matter how many times it has been debunked by statisticians
and reputable economists (and no, not just those on the left– the ranks include Bruce Bartlett for example, a solid Reaganist).
To reiterate again : the CRA played no role in the mortgage boom and bust. Among other facts in the way of that hypothesis is
the fact that riskiest loans were being made by non-bank lenders (Countrywide) who were not covered by the CRA which only applied
to actual banks– and the banks did not really get into the game full tilt, lowering their lending standards, until late in the
game, c. 2005, in response to their loss of business to the non-bank lenders. Ditto for the GSEs, which did not lower their standards
until 2005 and even then relied on wall Street to vet the subprime loans they were buying.
To be sure, blaming Wall Street for everything is also wrong-headed, though wall Street certainly did some stupid, greedy and
shady things (No, I am not letting them off the hook!) But the cast of miscreants is numbered in the millions and it stretches
around the planet. Everyone (for example) who got into the get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme of house flipping, especially if they lied
about their income to do so. And everyone who took out a HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit) and foolishly charged it up on a consumption
binge. And shall we talk about the mortgage brokers who coached people into lying, the loan officers who steered customers into
the riskiest (and highest earning) loans they could, the sellers who asked palace-prices for crackerbox hovels, the appraisers
who rubber-stamped such prices, the regulators who turned a blind eye to all the fraud and malfeasance, the ratings agencies who
handed out AAA ratings to securities full of junk, the politicians who rejoiced over the apparent "Bush Boom" well, I could continue,
but you get the picture.
"The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from
their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster
fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything."
Pretty sure that calling other people to repent of their sin of disagreeing with you is not quite what the Holy Bible intended.
"... While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First, that there was never sufficient ..."
"... While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First, that there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments ..."
"... the loosey-goosy standard Rosenstein has applied is an invitation for an open ended fishing expedition aimed at derailing the political agenda of the elected government. This puts too much power in the hands of unelected agents in the bureaucracy who may be influenced by powerbrokers operating behind the scenes who want to disrupt, obstruct, or paralyze the government. And this, in fact, is exactly what is taking place presently. ..."
"... Naturally, a broad-ranging mandate like Rosenstein's will result in excesses, and it has. Of the four people who have been caught up in Mueller's expansive dragnet, exactly zero have been indicted on charges even remotely connected to the original allegation of "collusion with Russia to sway the presidential election in Trump's favor." Clearly, people's civil liberties are being violated to conduct a political jihad on an unpopular president and his aids. ..."
"... The daily blather in the media does not meet that standard nor does the much ballyhooed Intelligence Community Assessment that was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the elections. The ICA even offered this sweeping disclaimer at the beginning of the report which admits that the intelligence gathered therein should not in any way be construed to represent solid evidence of anything. ..."
"... Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents ..."
"... The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning to unravel ..."
"... The skepticism about Mueller probably has less to do with the man, than it does with Washington in general ..."
"... That may be the case among those who have never bothered to look past the mainstream TV news for information about Mueller. Those who have kept up with his career in the swamp have been skeptical (to say the least) about Mueller's appointment because he's so obviously a criminal himself ..."
While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First,
that there was never sufficient
While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First,
that there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been
probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe
that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been
met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments
Even so, there's no evidence that a crime has been committed. None. And that's been the main criticism of the investigation from
the get go. It's fine for the New York Times and the Washington Post to reiterate the same tedious, unsubstantiated claims over and
over again ad nauseam. Their right to fabricate news is guaranteed under the First Amendment and they take full advantage of that
privilege. But it's different for professional attorney operating at the highest level of the Justice Department to appoint a Special
Counsel to rummage through all manner of private or privileged documents, transcripts, tax returns, private conversations, intercepted
phone calls and emails -- of the democratically-elected president -- based on nothing more than the spurious and politically-motivated
allegations made in the nation's elite media or by flagrantly-partisan actors operating in the Intelligence Community or law enforcement.
Can you see the problem here? This is not just an attack on Trump (whose immigration, environmental, health care, tax and foreign
policies I personally despise.) It is an attempt to roll back the results of the election by bogging him down in legal proceedings
making it impossible for him to govern. These attacks are not just on Trump, they're on the legitimate authority of the people to
choose their own leaders in democratic elections. That's what's at stake. And that's why there must be a high threshold for launching
an investigation like this.
Consider this: On May 17, 2017, when Rosenstein announced his decision to appoint a Special Counsel he said the following:
"In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and
appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter. My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed
or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique
circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree
of independence from the normal chain of command." Rosenstein wrote that his responsibility is to ensure a "full and thorough
investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election." As special counsel, Mueller is charged with
investigating "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President
Donald Trump."
That's not good enough. There's no evidence that "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" were improper, unethical or illegal. Nor do any such presumed "links and/or
coordination" imply a crime was committed. Rather, the loosey-goosy standard Rosenstein has applied is an invitation for an open
ended fishing expedition aimed at derailing the political agenda of the elected government. This puts too much power in the hands
of unelected agents in the bureaucracy who may be influenced by powerbrokers operating behind the scenes who want to disrupt, obstruct,
or paralyze the government. And this, in fact, is exactly what is taking place presently.
Naturally, a broad-ranging mandate like Rosenstein's will result in excesses, and it has. Of the four people who have been
caught up in Mueller's expansive dragnet, exactly zero have been indicted on charges even remotely connected to the original allegation
of "collusion with Russia to sway the presidential election in Trump's favor." Clearly, people's civil liberties are being violated
to conduct a political jihad on an unpopular president and his aids.
So, how does one establish whether there's a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed?
The daily blather in the media does not meet that standard nor does the much ballyhooed Intelligence Community Assessment that
was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the elections. The ICA even offered this sweeping disclaimer at the
beginning of the report which admits that the intelligence gathered therein should not in any way be construed to represent solid
evidence of anything.
Here's the from the report:
"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected
information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
... ... ...
The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at
all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and
public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning
to unravel.
"The skepticism about Mueller probably has less to do with the man, than it does with Washington in general."
That may be the case among those who have never bothered to look past the mainstream TV news for information about Mueller.
Those who have kept up with his career in the swamp have been skeptical (to say the least) about Mueller's appointment because
he's so obviously a criminal himself.
That segment of the general public, as it were, have been opposed to the establishment of the investigation itself from the
first day it was proposed.
Just hours after FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe delivered private testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, his boss,
FBI Director Christopher Wray, announced that the bureau's top lawyer would be leaving his post, an attempt to bring in "new blood"
to an agency whose reputation has been hopelessly compromised by revelations that agents' partisan bias may have influenced two high-profile
investigations involving President Donald Trump and his former campaign rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
As the
Washington Post reported, the FBI's top lawyer, James Baker, is being reassigned.
WaPo says Baker's removal is part of Wray's effort to assemble his own team of senior advisers while he tries to defuse allegations
of partisanship that have plagued the bureau in recent months.
James Baker
But reports published over the summer said Baker was "the top suspect" in an interagency leak investigation, as
we reported back in July
Three sources, with knowledge of the investigation, told Circa that Baker is the top suspect in an ongoing leak investigation,
but Circa has not been able to confirm the details of what national security information or material was allegedly leaked.
A federal law enforcement official with knowledge of ongoing internal investigations in the bureau told Circa, "the bureau
is scouring for leakers and there's been a lot of investigations."
The revelation comes as the Trump administration has ramped up efforts to contain leaks both within the White House and within
its own national security apparatus.
The news of the staff shakeup comes as Trump and his political allies have promised to "rebuild" the FBI to make it "bigger and
better than ever" following its "disgraceful" conduct over the Trump probe . Baker played a key role in the agency's handling of
major cases and policy debates in recent years, including the FBI's unsuccessful battle with Apple over the growing use of encryption
in cellphones.
Just like Clapper admitting to perjuring himself before congress and he is brought on TV to comment as if he is a decent person
instead of being thrown in prison like anyone else would be.
According to Politico , a group of frustrated Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee led by Devin Nunes (R-CA) have been
gathering in secret for several weeks to build a case against senior leaders of the Justice Department and the FBI for what they
say is "improper" and perhaps criminal mishandling of the salacious and unproven 34-page Trump-Russia dossier, according to four
sources familiar with their plans.
Devin Nunes (R-CA)
A subset of the Republican members of the House intelligence committee, led by Chairman Devin Nunes of California, has been
quietly working parallel to the committee's high-profile inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. [ ]
The people familiar with Nunes' plans said the goal is to highlight what some committee Republicans see as corruption and conspiracy
in the upper ranks of federal law enforcement. The group hopes to release a report early next year detailing their concerns about
the DOJ and FBI, and they might seek congressional votes to declassify elements of their evidence. -
Politico
When pressed for details, Reps Mike Conway (R-TX) and Peter King (R-NY) were mum, with Conway telling POLITICO, "I don't want
talk about what we do behind closed doors."
Nunes' has gone on record several times to discuss his feelings over the government law enforcement, telling Fox News "I hate
to use the word corrupt, but they've become at least so dirty that who's watching the watchmen? Who's investigating these people?"
adding "There is no one."
House and Senate Republicans have joined countless voices, including President Trump's outside counsel,
Jay Sekulow
, to launch a second Special Counsel to investigate the FBI and Justice Department to find out what role the salacious dossier played
in the Trump-Russia investigation, as well as a trove of anti-Trump text messages sent between lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok
to his FBI attorney mistress Lisa Page while the two of them were working together on both the Clinton email investigation and the
Trump-Russia investigation.
Republicans in the Nunes-led group suspect the FBI and DOJ have worked either to hurt Trump or aid his former campaign rival
Hillary Clinton, a sense that has pervaded parts of the president's inner circle. Trump has long called the investigations into
whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election a "witch hunt," and on Tuesday, his son Donald Trump Jr.
told a crowd in
Florida the probes were part of a "rigged system" by "people at the highest levels of government" who were working to hurt
the president.
House Intel Committee member Jim Jordan (R-OH) told Fox News yesterday that they are now considering contempt of the FBI and DOJ
leadership and subpoenas over anti-Trump bias:
I think they were putting together a plan to stop Donald Trump from being the next president of the United States. I think
it's amazing in spite of the fact that the Democrats were against him, the Republican establishment was against him, the mainstream
press was against him. and now I believe the FBI and the Justice Department were against him , the American people still said
that's the guy we want to be the next president.
" I believe that fake dossier was used as the basis to get Warren to now what we learn about Peter Strzok and Bruce Ohr and the
FBI and the Justice Department ," said Jordan, adding, " Everything points to the fact that there was an orchestrated plan to try
to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the President of the United States ."
Meanwhile, Trey Gowdy - who notably chose not to call on key witness Peter Strzok or demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr for testimony
- is apparently not included in the group seeking to build a case. As POLITICO reports, "A congressional aide with knowledge of the
meetings said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was not among the participants. " While he does believe the FBI and DOJ have recently made
decisions worth looking into, he is and will always be a defender of the FBI, DOJ and the special counsel ," the aide said.
I think he's intimating that she would have been responded to with extreme violence from the 'deplorables'. Gotta admit: had
she gotten in, we may have already had a revolution. Instead, we get this slow death by a thousand cuts. I'm not sure what is
worse.
At this point I would not trust Mr Gowdy, in fact it's my hope his time with the state of SC ends soon. He's simply shown an
extreme level in lacking execution. After what happened this week with McCabe's closed door testimony, it's clear Gowdy isn't
on the side of the American people. It's called being able to close & he doesn't have it or is holding something back.
The corruption in the FBI is too broad and too deep. This organization is a nest of traitorous vipers who actively worked to
overthrow a constitutionally elected president.
The organisation must be gutted and it's mission absorbed by other agencies. The current FBI management should water the tree
of liberty.
And the Russiagate investigation may have busted an axle. Though yet unproven, charges are
being made that Robert Mueller's sleuths gained access to Trump transition emails
illicitly.
This could imperil prosecutions by Mueller's team, already under a cloud for proven malice
toward the president.
Recall: Daniel Ellsberg, who delivered the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, walked
free when it was learned that the White House "Plumbers" had burgled his psychiatrist's
office.
"... Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike. ..."
There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016
election, after all. But it was not orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely homegrown
affair conducted from the inner sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and
Langley----of the Imperial City.
Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In fact,
they were lifetime beltway insiders occupying the highest positions of power in the US
government.
Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:
John Brennan, CIA director;
Susan Rice, National Security Advisor;
Samantha Power, UN Ambassador;
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence;
James Comey, FBI director;
Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI director;
Sally Yates, deputy Attorney General,
Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG;
Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence;
Lisa Page, FBI lawyer;
and countless other lessor and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President
Obama himself.
To a person, the participants in this illicit cabal shared the core trait that made Obama
such a blight on the nation's well-being. To wit, he never held an honest job outside the halls
of government in his entire adult life; and as a careerist agent of the state and practitioner
of its purported goods works, he exuded a sanctimonious disdain for everyday citizens who make
their living along the capitalist highways and by-ways of America.
The above cast of election-meddlers, of course, comes from the same mold. If Wikipedia is
roughly correct, just these 10 named perpetrators have punched in about 300 years of
post-graduate employment---and 260 of those years (87%) were on government payrolls or
government contractor jobs.
As to whether they shared Obama's political class arrogance, Peter Strzok left nothing to
the imagination in his now celebrated texts to his gal-pal, Lisa Page:
"Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support......I LOATHE
congress....And F Trump."
You really didn't need the ALL CAPS to get the gist. In a word, the anti-Trump cabal is
comprised of creatures of the state.
Their now obvious effort to alter the outcome of the 2016 election was nothing less than the
Imperial City's immune system attacking an alien threat, which embodied the very opposite
trait: That is, the Donald had never spent one moment on the state's payroll, had been elected
to no government office and displayed a spirited contempt for the groupthink and verities of
officialdom in the Imperial City.
But it is the vehemence and flagrant transparency of this conspiracy to prevent Trump's
ascension to the Oval Office that reveals the profound threat to capitalism and democracy posed
by the Deep State and its prosperous elites and fellow travelers domiciled in the Imperial
City.
That is to say, Donald Trump was no kind of anti-statist and only a skin-deep populist, at
best. His signature anti-immigrant meme was apparently discovered by accident when in the early
days of the campaign he went off on Mexican thugs, rapists and murderers----only to find that
it resonated strongly among a certain element of the GOP grass roots.
But a harsh line on immigrants, refugees and Muslims would not have incited the Deep State
into an attempted coup d'état; it wouldn't have mobilized so overtly against Ted Cruz,
for example, whose positions on the ballyhooed terrorist/immigrant threat were not much
different.
No, what sent the Imperial City establishment into a fit of apoplexy was exactly two things
that struck at the core of its raison d' etre.
First was Trump's stated intentions to seek rapprochement with Putin's Russia and his
sensible embrace of a non-interventionist "America First" view of Washington's role in the
world. And secondly, and even more importantly, was his very persona.
That is to say, the role of today's president is to function as the suave, reliable
maître d' of the Imperial City and the lead spokesman for Washington's purported good
works at home and abroad. And for that role the slovenly, loud-mouthed, narcissistic,
bombastic, ill-informed and crudely-mannered Donald Trump was utterly unqualified.
Stated differently, welfare statism and warfare statism is the secular religion of the
Imperial City and its collaborators in the mainstream media; and the Oval Office is the bully
pulpit from which its catechisms, bromides and self-justifications are propagandized to the
unwashed masses---the tax-and-debt-slaves of Flyover America who bear the burden of its
continuation.
Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would
sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless
tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting
and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe
and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike.
Yet that is exactly what has the Deep State and its media collaborators running scared. To
wit, Trump's entire modus operandi is not about governing or a serious policy agenda---and most
certainly not about Making America's Economy Great Again. (MAEGA)
By appointing a passel of Keynesian monetary central planners to the Fed and launching an
orgy of fiscal recklessness via his massive defense spending and tax-cutting initiatives, the
Donald has more than sealed his own doom: There will unavoidably be a massive financial and
economic crisis in the years just ahead and the rulers of the Imperial City will most certainly
heap the blame upon him with malice aforethought.
In the interim, however, what the Donald is actually doing is sharply polarizing the country
and using the Bully Pulpit for the very opposite function assigned to it by Washington's
permanent political class. Namely, to discredit and vilify the ruling elites of government and
the media and thereby undermine the docility and acquiescence of the unwashed masses upon which
the Imperial City's rule and hideous prosperity depend.
It is no wonder, then, that the inner circle of the Obama Administration plotted an
"insurance policy". They saw it coming-----that is, an offensive rogue disrupter who was soft
on Russia, to boot--- and out of that alarm the entire hoax of RussiaGate was born.
As is now well known from the recent dump of 375 Strzok/Gates text messages, there occurred
on August 15, 2016 a meeting in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (who is still
there) to kick off the RussiaGate campaign. As Strzok later wrote to Page, who was also at the
meeting:
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk......It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you're 40."
They will try to spin this money quote seven-ways to Sunday, but in the context of
everything else now known there is only one possible meaning: The national security and law
enforcement machinery of Imperial Washington was being activated then and there in behalf of
Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Indeed, the trail of proof is quite clear. At the very time of this August meeting, the FBI
was already being fed the initial elements of the Steele dossier, and the latter had nothing to
do with any kind of national security investigation.
For crying out loud, it was plain old "oppo research" paid for by the Clinton campaign and
the DNC. And the only way that it bore on Russian involvement in the US election was that
virtually all of the salacious material and false narratives about Trump emissaries meeting
with high level Russian officials was disinformation sourced in Moscow, and was completely
untrue.
As former senior FBI official, Andrew McCarthy, neatly summarized the sequence of action
recently:
The Clinton campaign generated the Steele dossier through lawyers who retained Fusion GPS.
Fusion, in turn, hired Steele, a former British intelligence agent who had FBI contacts from
prior collaborative investigations. The dossier was steered into the FBI's hands as it began
to be compiled in the summer of 2016. A Fusion Russia expert, Nellie Ohr, worked with Steele
on Fusion's anti-Trump research. She is the wife of Bruce Ohr, then the deputy associate
attorney general -- the top subordinate of Sally Yates, then Obama's deputy attorney general
(later acting AG). Ohr was a direct pipeline to Yates.....
Based on the publication this week of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and
Lisa Page, the FBI lawyer with whom he was having an extramarital affair, we have learned of
a meeting convened in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe...... right around the
time the Page FISA warrant was obtained......
Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele. And after Trump was elected, according to Fusion
founder Glenn Simpson, he requested and got a meeting with Simpson to, as Simpson told the
House Intelligence Committee, "discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election."
This, of course, was the precise time Democrats began peddling the public narrative of
Trump-Russia collusion. It is the time frame during which Ohr's boss, Yates, was pushing an
absurd Logan Act investigation of Trump transition official Michael Flynn (then slotted to
become Trump's national-security adviser) over Flynn's meetings with the Russian
ambassador.
Here's the thing. There is almost nothing in the Steele dossiers which is true. At the same
time, there is no real alternative evidence based on hard NSA intercepts that show Russian
government agents were behind the only two acts----the leaks of the DNC emails and the Podesta
emails----that were of even minimal import to the outcome of the 2016 presidential
campaign.
As to the veracity of the dossier, the raving anti-Trumper and former CIA interim chief,
Michael Morrell, settled the matter. If you are paying ex-FSA agents for information on the
back streets of Moscow, the more you pay, the more "information" you will get:
Then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their
motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the
sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little
bit because if you're paying somebody, particularly former [Russian Federal Security Service]
officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they're going to call
you up and say, 'Hey, let's have another meeting, I have more information for you,' because
they want to get paid some more,' Morrell said.
Far from being "verified," the dossier is best described as a pack of lies, gossip, innuendo
and irrelevancies. Take, for example, the claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with
Russian Federation Council foreign affairs head Konstantin Kosachev in Prague during August
2016. That claim is verifiably false as proven by Cohen's own passport.
Likewise, the dossier 's claim that Carter Page was offered a giant bribe by the head of
Rosneft, the Russian state energy company, in return for lifting the sanctions is downright
laughable. That's because Carter Page never had any serious role in the Trump campaign and was
one of hundreds of unpaid informal advisors who hung around the basket hoping for some role in
a future Trump government.
Like the hapless George Papadopoulos, in fact, Page apparently never met Trump, had no
foreign policy credentials and had been drafted onto the campaign's so-called foreign policy
advisory committee out of sheer desperation.
That is, because the mainstream GOP foreign policy establishment had so completely boycotted
the Trump campaign, the latter was forced to fill its advisory committee essentially from the
phone book; and that desperation move in March 2016, in turn, had been undertaken in order to
damp-down the media uproar over the Donald's assertion that he got his foreign policy advise
from watching TV!
The truth of the matter is that Page was a former Merrill Lynch stockbrokers who had plied
his trade in Russia several years earlier. He had gone to Moscow in July 2016 on his own dime
and without any mandate from the Trump campaign; and his "meeting" with Rosneft actually
consisted of drinks with an old buddy from his broker days who had become head of investor
relations at Rosneft.
Nevertheless, it is pretty evident that the Steele dossier's tale about Page's alleged
bribery scheme was the basis for the FISA warrant that resulted in wiretaps on Page and other
officials in Trump Tower during September and October.
And that's your insurance policy at work: The Deep State and its allies in the Obama
administration were desperately looking for dirt with which to crucify the Donald, and thereby
insure that the establishment's anointed candidate would not fail at the polls.
So the question recurs as to why did the conspirators resort to the outlandish and even
cartoonish disinformation contained in the Steele dossier?
The answer to that question cuts to the quick of the entire RussiaGate hoax. To wit, that's
all they had!
Notwithstanding the massive machinery and communications vacuum cleaners operated by the $75
billion US intelligence communities and its vaunted 17 agencies, there are no digital
intercepts proving that Russian state operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta emails. Period.
Yet when it comes to anything that even remotely smacks of "meddling" in the US election
campaign, that's all she wrote.
There is nothing else of moment, and most especially not the alleged phishing expeditions
directed at 20 or so state election boards. Most of these have been discredited, denied by
local officials or were simply the work of everyday hackers looking for voter registration
lists that could be sold.
The patently obvious point here is that in America there is no on-line network of voting
machines on either an intra-state or interstate basis. And that fact renders the whole election
machinery hacking meme null and void. Not even the treacherous Russians are stupid enough to
waste their time trying to hack that which is unhackable.
In that vein, the Facebook ad buying scheme is even more ridiculous. In the context of an
election campaign in which upwards of $7 billion of spending was reported by candidates and
their committees to the FEC, and during which easily double that amount was spent by
independent committees and issue campaigns, the notion that just $44,000 of Facebook ads made
any difference to anything is not worthy of adult thought.
And, yes, out of the ballyhooed $100,000 of Facebook ads, the majority occurred after the
election was over and none of them named candidates, anyway. The ads consisted of issue
messages that reflected all points on the political spectrum from pro-choice to anti-gun
control.
And even this so-called effort at "polarizing" the American electorate was "discovered" only
after Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its first two searches. Instead,
this complete drivel was detected only after the Senate's modern day Joseph McCarthy, Sen. Mark
Warner, who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator
on Internet regulation, showed up on Mark Zuckerberg's doorstep at Facebook headquarters.
In any event, we can be sure there are no NSA intercepts proving that the Russians hacked
the Dem emails for one simple reason: They would have been leaked long ago by the vast network
of Imperial City operatives plotting to bring the Donald down.
Moreover, the original architect and godfather of NSA's vast spying apparatus, William
Binney, has essentially proved that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider who downloaded
them on a memory stick. By conducting his own experiments, he showed that the known download
speed of one batch of DNC emails could not have occurred over the Internet from a remote
location in Russia or anywhere else on the planet, and actually matched what was possible only
via a local USB-connected thumb drive.
So the real meaning of the Strzok/Gates text messages is straight foreword. There was a
conspiracy to prevent Trump's election, and then after the shocking results of November 8, this
campaign morphed into an intensified effort to discredit the winner.
For instance, Susan Rice got Obama to lower the classification level of the information
obtained from the Trump campaign intercepts and other dirt-gathering actions by the
Intelligence Community (IC)--- so that it could be disseminated more readily to all Washington
intelligence agencies.
In short order, of course, the IC was leaking like a sieve, thereby paving the way for the
post-election hysteria and the implication that any contact with a Russian--even one living in
Brooklyn-- must be collusion. And that included calls to the Russian ambassador by the
president-elect's own national security advisor designate.
Should there by any surprise, therefore, that it turns out the Andrew McCabe bushwhacked
General Flynn on January 24 when he called to say that FBI agents were on the way to the White
House for what Flynn presumed to be more security clearance work with his incipient staff.
No at all. The FBI team was there to interrogate Flynn about the transcripts of his
perfectly appropriate and legal conversations with Ambassador Kislyak about two matters of
state----the UN resolution on Israel and the spiteful new sanctions on certain Russian citizens
that Obama announced on December 28 in a fit of pique over the Dems election loss.
And that insidious team of FBI gotcha cops was led by none other than......Peter Strzok!
But after all the recent leaks---and these text messages are just the tip of the
iceberg-----the die is now cast. Either the Deep State and its minions and collaborators in the
media and the Republican party, too, will soon succeed in putting Mike Pence into the Oval
Office, or the Imperial City is about ready to break-out in vicious partisan warfare like never
before.
Either way, economic and fiscal governance is about ready to collapse entirely, making the
tax bill a kind of last hurrah before they mayhem really begins.
In that context, selling the rip may become one of the most profitable speculations ever
imagined.
Not sure why Stockman went off on a tangent about Trump's innumerate economic strategy -
kinda dilutes from an otherwise informative piece for anyone who hasn't a handle on the
underhand shit that's been hitting the fan in recent months. Its like he has to have a go
about it no matter what the main theme. Like PCR and "insouciance". And then there's the
texting...
Clue yourself in, David.
A very small percentage of the public are actually informed about what is really going
down. Those that visit ZH or your website. Fox is the only pro-Trump mainstream TV news
outlet, and as to the NYT, WP et al? The media disinformation complex keep the rest in the
matrix, and it has been very easy to see in action over the last year or so because it has
been so well co-ordinated (and totally fabricated).
Given the blatant and contemptous avoidance of the truth by the MSM (the current litany of
seditious/treasonous actions being a case in point), it is fair to say that Trump's tweets
provide a very real public service - focussing the (otherwise ignorant) public's attention on
many things the aforementioned cunts (I'll include Google and FaecesBook) divert from like
the plague (and making them look utter slime in the process).
I do respect stockman but here's bullshit-call #1: he says that the deep state doesn't
like the divisiveness he causes: bush certainly did that and Obama' did so at an order of
magnitude higher. I don't believe that the left is more upset by trump than we were by Barry-
we're just not a bunch of sniveling, narcissistic babies like they are.
When the details of the FISA warrant application are revealed, it will be like a
megaton-class munition detonating, and the Deep State will bear the brunt of destruction.
Similar mass deception was in play to start the Iraq war as well. Constant bombardment led
to public consensus and even the liberal New York Times endorsed the war. Whenever we see
mass hysteria about something new, we should just go with the flow and not ask any questions
at all. It is best for retaining sanity in this dumbed down and getting more dumber
world.
Susan Rice and Obama should be indicted for illegally wiretapping Trump Towers for the
express purpose of finding oppo research to help Hellary's late term abortiion of a
campaign
This one is deeper but well laid out. Comey & Mueller Ignored McCabe's Ties to Russian
Crime Figures & His Reported Tampering in Russian FBI Cases, Files
Great read, loved the 'Imperial City's immune system' analogy...
I disagree about the economy though.
It feels strange to me that the architect of the Reagan Revolution is unable to see the
makings of another revolution, the Trump Revolution.
We have had 10-20 years of pent up demand in the economy and instead of electing another
neo-Marxist Alynski acolyte, the American people elected a hard charging anti-establishment
bull in a China shop.
Surely Dave can see the potential.
It kills me when people are surprised by a 12 month, 5000 point run up on Wall Street.
For God's sake the United States was run by a fucking commie for 8 years, what the fuck
did you think was gonna happen?
America is divided and will remain divided. I think it will last at least for the next 50
years, maybe longer. The best way out is to limit the federal government and give each state
more responsibility. States can succeed or fail on their own. People will be free to move
where they want.
Somewhere there is a FISA judge who should be defrocked and exposed as a fraud. No sober
judge would accept such evidence for any purpose, much less authorizing government snooping
on a major party candidate for president.
The CIA holds all the videos from Jeff Epstein's Island (20 documented trips by Bill, 6
documented trips by Hillary), I'm sure Bill doing a 12 year old, Hillary and Huma doing an 8
year old girl together, etc. So what are they willing to do for the CIA? Anything at any
cost, getting caught red handed with a dossier is chump change when you look at the big
picture..they don't care and will do anything...ANYTHING to get rid of Trump.
This is the only reason they are so frantic. There is absolutely no other reason they
would play at this level.
As always, Dave puts it all into prospective for even the brain dead. Ya think Joe and his
gang will be talking about this article on their morning talk show today?? I wonder how
Brezenski's daughter is going to tell daddy that the gig is up and they may want to look into
packing a boogie bag just to play it safe?
David Stockman is a flame of hope in a world of dark machievellian thought!
Why did the alt media and the msm all stop reportinmg that McCabe's wife recieved 700
thousand dollars from Terry McAulife (former Clinton campaign manager times 2!) for a
Virginia State Senate run? Quid pro quo? Oh no, never the up and up DemonRats.
So when I hear that the conversation was held in McCabe's office- I want to puke first
then start building the gallows.
fucken brilliant article!! There is a lot I don't like about trump (some of which stockman
discusses above), but as a retired govt worker, I can tell you that he right about what he is
saying here.
One little tidbit that has been lost in all of this:
If the FBI was willing to use their power to back Hillary and defeat Trump at the national
level, what did they try to do in McCabe's wife's state senate campaign? She is a
pediatrician and she ran for state senate. ??? WTF is that about? She's not only a doctor but
a doctor for children. Those people are usually wired to help people. Yet she was going to
for-go being a doctor for a state senate position. ??? And the DNC forked over $700,000 to
put her on the map.
I'm sure the people meeting daily in Andy's office were not pleased with the voter
resistance to his wife and to Hillary. The FBI needs to be shut down. They have become an
opposition research firm for the DNC. Even if they can't find dirt on candidates using the
NSA database, they are able to tap that database to find out political strategies in real
time on opposition The fish is rotten from the head down to the tail.
No matter what article you read here, and don't get me wrong, I love the insight, but
every fucking article is "it's all over. America is doomed, the petro dollar days are over,
China China China. It's getting a bit old. The charts and graphs about stock market
collapse......it becoming an old record that needs changed. If I say it's going to rain every
fucking day, at some point I will be right. That doesn't make me a genius....it makes me
persistent.
It's a Deep State mess and Sessions is trying his best as he cowers in a corner sucking
his thumb.
If they continue to go after Trump, the FBI is going to be found guilty of violating the
Hatch Act by exonerating Hillary. See burner phones. See writing the conclusion in May when
the investigation supposedly ended with Hillary's interview on July 3rd. The FBI will also be
exposed for sedition as they then carried out the phony Russiagate investigation as their
"insurance policy."
However, they have created an expectation with the left that Trump and his minions will be
brought to "justice." If we thought the Left didn't handle losing the election well, they
will not be pleased at losing Russiagate.
"... Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more. ..."
"... The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc. ..."
"... This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from. ..."
"... AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card. ..."
So I see where Nunes in a ZeroHedge posting says that there might have been "incidental surveillance" of "Trump" (?Trump associates?
?Trump tower? ?Trump campaign?)
Now to the average NC reader, it kinda goes without saying. But I don't think Trump understands the scope of US government "surveillance"
and I don't think the average citizen, certainly not the average Trump supporter, does either – the nuances and subtleties of
it – the supposed "safeguards".
I can understand the rationale for it .but this goes to show that when you give people an opportunity to use secret information
for their own purposes .they will use secret information for their own purposes.
And at some point, the fact of the matter that the law regarding the "incidental" leaking appears to have been broken, and
that this leaking IMHO was purposefully broken for political purposes .is going to come to the fore. Like bringing up "fake news"
– some of these people on the anti Trump side seem not just incapable of playing 11th dimensional chess, they seem incapable of
winning tic tac toe .
Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable. But it seems like the intelligence agencies are spending
more time monitoring repubs than Al queda. Now maybe repubs are worse than Al queda – I think its time we have a real debate instead
of the pseudo debates and start asking how useful the CIA is REALLY. (and we can ask how useful repubs and dems are too)
If Obama taped the information, stuffed the tape in one of Michelle's shoeboxes, then hid the shoebox in the Whitehouse basement,
he could be in trouble. Ivanka is sure to search any shoeboxes she finds.
Oh the Trump supporters are all over this, don't worry. There are many more levels to what is going on than what is reported
in the fakenews MSM.
Adm Roger of NSA made his November visit to Trump Tower, after a SCIF was installed there, to .be interviewed for a job uh-huh
yeah.
Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with
over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more.
The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled
by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there,
detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part
of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after
finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump
sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors,
which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore
the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked,
angry, disturbed etc.
You all should be happy, because although Pres Trump has been vindicated here on all counts, the more important story for you
is that the old line Democratic Party looks about to sink under the wieght of thier own lies and illegalities. This all stems
from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level
analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from.
AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual
"I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card.
Strzok's "insurance" text shows the FBI disregarded warnings that launching Russiagate was
wrong and the reason of launching investigation was purely politcal
Notable quotes:
"... Over the course of this discussion Page expressed the view – commonplace in August 2016 – that Donald Trump had no prospect of winning the election. She therefore counselled that the proposed Russiagate investigation was unnecessary. Strzok responded that the FBI had no choice but to proceed with the Russiagate investigation because of the risk of not doing so was too great. ..."
"... The proposal to launch the Russiagate investigation clearly ran into resistance from some members of the FBI. Clearly they were unhappy because they were worried that it would amount to improper interference in the election. Undoubtedly they were also worried that it might violate the Hatch Act, which forbids misuse of public office to engage in partisan political activity especially during an election. ..."
"... The hardliners – and Strzok's text message clearly identifies Strzok as one of the hardliners – however overrode those objections. They insisted the Russiagate investigation had to be launched. They did so because the mere possibility of Trump winning the election, however remote, was too great a risk for them to accept. ..."
"... The key piece in the jigsaw is again the Trump Dossier. It is now known that Christopher Steele – the Trump Dossier's compiler – was in contact with the FBI in early July 2016, before publication of the DNC emails by Wikileaks on 22nd July 2016. The very first entry of the Trump Dossier dated 20th June 2016 and almost certainly seen by Strzok before Wikileaks published the DNC emails and therefore before the earliest possible date for the launch of the Russiagate investigation already claimed that the Russians had compromising material on Trump because of Trump's supposed orgy with Russian prostitutes in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow in 2013. ..."
"... Later entries in the Trump Dossier dated 19th July 2016, 30th July 2016, 5th August 2016 and 10th August 2016, and one entry incorrectly dated 26th July 2015 but which can be clearly dated to July 2016, not only claimed that the Russians were meddling in the election on Donald Trump's behalf – purportedly on the direct orders from President Putin himself – but also claimed that Trump's campaign was actively colluding with the Russians in doing this. Some of these entries would almost certainly have been seen by Strzok before the Russiagate investigation was launched, and he had probably seen all of them before he texted Page on 15th August 2016. ..."
"... It is now known that the FBI gave credence to the Trump Dossier in the summer of 2016 to the point where it used information obtained from the Trump Dossier to obtain FISA warrants, notably one authorising surveillance of Carter Page. ..."
"... There is one further possibility which is more speculative. It is now know that sometime in August 2016 the CIA forwarded to President Obama a report alleging that the Russians were meddling in the US election. All the facts show that this report was based on the Trump Dossier. Assuming that the FBI and the CIA were consulting each other and exchanging information about the Trump Dossier – as is highly likely – it is possible that the discussion in McCabe's office was also about the report the CIA was proposing to send to Obama, with some people within the FBI concerned that the Trump Dossier's unverified allegations were being used to compile a report for the President of the United States. Regardless of this second possibility, the Strzok text is key evidence because it shows that the FBI pressed ahead with the Russiagate investigation despite the objections of some of its members. ..."
Strzok's "insurance" text shows the FBI disregarded warnings that launching Russiagate was
wrong
The last few days the media has been buzzing with speculation about the precise meaning of a
text message sent by the sacked FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his lover FBI lawyer Lisa Page
on 15th August 2016. I am puzzled by this speculation. I don't think there is any mystery at
all about this text. There is no doubt it refers to the Russiagate investigation and its
meaning is perfectly clear. Let's look first at the text itself
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's
no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance
policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 ."
"Andy" is FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. "He" is Donald Trump. If that was not so
someone by now would have said so. The text shows Strzok and Page took part in a discussion in
McCabe's office in which Donald Trump and the election were discussed. Over the course of
this discussion Page expressed the view – commonplace in August 2016 – that Donald
Trump had no prospect of winning the election. She therefore counselled that the proposed
Russiagate investigation was unnecessary. Strzok responded that the FBI had no choice but to
proceed with the Russiagate investigation because of the risk of not doing so was too
great.
The Russiagate investigation is obviously the "insurance" Strzok is talking about. Nothing
else makes sense. Does the text message tell us anything else? The short answer is it does, and
it is important. The proposal to launch the Russiagate investigation clearly ran into resistance from some
members of the FBI. Clearly they were unhappy because they were worried that it would amount to
improper interference in the election. Undoubtedly they were also worried that it might violate
the Hatch Act, which forbids misuse of public office to engage in partisan political activity
especially during an election.
That there were discussions within the FBI about the Hatch Act over the course of the summer
of 2016 we know because concern about a possible violation of the Hatch Act was the reason
former FBI Director James Comey gave for his refusal to sign the US intelligence community's
7th October 2016 statement which blamed Russia for meddling in the US election.
It was clearly in response to these concerns about the possible unlawfulness of the
Russiagate investigation and its possible impropriety that Page who is a lawyer suggested that
there was no need to launch the Russiagate investigation because Trump was certain to lose the
election anyway.
The hardliners – and Strzok's text message clearly identifies Strzok as one of the
hardliners – however overrode those objections. They insisted the Russiagate
investigation had to be launched. They did so because the mere possibility of Trump winning the
election, however remote, was too great a risk for them to accept.
As to why this was so, the answer is that Strzok and the other members of the FBI who
supported him had by this point clearly convinced themselves that the claims that Donald Trump
was connected to the Russians were true.
The key piece in the jigsaw is again the Trump Dossier. It is now known that Christopher
Steele – the Trump Dossier's compiler – was in contact with the FBI in early July
2016, before publication of the DNC emails by Wikileaks on 22nd July 2016. The very first entry
of the Trump Dossier dated 20th June 2016 and almost certainly seen by Strzok before Wikileaks
published the DNC emails and therefore before the earliest possible date for the launch of the
Russiagate investigation already claimed that the Russians had compromising material on Trump
because of Trump's supposed orgy with Russian prostitutes in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow
in 2013.
Later entries in the Trump Dossier dated 19th July 2016, 30th July 2016, 5th August 2016
and 10th August 2016, and one entry incorrectly dated 26th July 2015 but which can be clearly
dated to July 2016, not only claimed that the Russians were meddling in the election on Donald
Trump's behalf – purportedly on the direct orders from President Putin himself –
but also claimed that Trump's campaign was actively colluding with the Russians in doing this.
Some of these entries would almost certainly have been seen by Strzok before the Russiagate
investigation was launched, and he had probably seen all of them before he texted Page on 15th
August 2016.
It is now known that the FBI gave credence to the Trump Dossier in the summer of 2016 to
the point where it used information obtained from the Trump Dossier to obtain FISA warrants,
notably one authorising surveillance of Carter Page.
That fact alone is sufficient to explain why hardliners within the FBI like Strzok were
insisting in the summer of 2016 that the Russiagate investigation had to be launched despite
the doubts about its lawfulness and propriety expressed by some people within the FBI.
It was in order to arrive at a decision whether or not to launch the Russiagate
investigation despite the doubts some were expressing about it that the meeting in McCabe's
office was called, with the decision being to proceed as Strzok wanted despite the doubts.
All this seems to me obvious from the wording of Strzok's text, from its date, and from the
surrounding circumstances.
There is one further possibility which is more speculative. It is now know that sometime
in August 2016 the CIA forwarded to President Obama a report alleging that the Russians were
meddling in the US election. All the facts show that this report was based on the Trump
Dossier. Assuming that the FBI and the CIA were consulting each other and exchanging
information about the Trump Dossier – as is highly likely – it is possible that the
discussion in McCabe's office was also about the report the CIA was proposing to send to Obama,
with some people within the FBI concerned that the Trump Dossier's unverified allegations were
being used to compile a report for the President of the United States. Regardless of this
second possibility, the Strzok text is key evidence because it shows that the FBI pressed ahead
with the Russiagate investigation despite the objections of some of its members.
Should there ever be an investigation by a second Special Counsel of the FBI's conduct
during the election, and should criminal charges ever be brought against its top officials for
the things they did during the election, this may prove to be important. It would show that
they pressed ahead and did things disregarding warnings that what they were proposing to do was
wrong.
Especially agree with the conclusion- "Using disinformation to promote an agenda of shifting
more costs onto workers to enhance profit margins. Isn't this what Paul Ryan means by "A Better
Way"?"
He is gloating that we have more "choices" as he takes away any possible means for actually
paying for our health care. This in a nutshell is the entire GOP approach. We are free to die.
In my state, one company (BC/BS) controls 0ver 70% of the health insurance market and there are
only two other even marginally significant players. Market based my ...
Yet another "national security parasite". Watt intentionally lied about wiretapping
Notable quotes:
"... "When he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, former FBI agent Clint Watts described how Russians used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans. ..."
"... In an interview Monday with NPR's Kelly McEvers, Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says the Russian misinformation campaign didn't stop with the election of President Trump. ..."
"... One example, he says, is Trump's claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration. "When they do that, they'll then respond to the wiretapping claim with further conspiracy theories about that claim and that just amplifies the message in the ecosystem," Watts says. ..."
"... The White House has blamed Democrats for the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying the theory is a way to shift the blame for their election loss. ..."
"How Russian Twitter Bots Pumped Out Fake News During The 2016 Election"
Listen 4:17
'Heard on All Things Considered' by Gabe O'Connor & Avie Schneider...April 3, 2017...4:53 PM ET
"When he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, former FBI agent Clint Watts described how Russians
used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans.
"So that way whenever you're trying to socially engineer them and convince them that the information is true, it's much more
simple because you see somebody and they look exactly like you, even down to the pictures," Watts told the panel, which is investigating
Russia's role in interfering in the U.S. elections.
In an interview Monday with NPR's Kelly McEvers, Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says
the Russian misinformation campaign didn't stop with the election of President Trump.
"If you went online today, you could see these accounts -- either bots or actual personas somewhere -- that are trying to connect
with the administration. They might broadcast stories and then follow up with another tweet that tries to gain the president's
attention, or they'll try and answer the tweets that the president puts out," Watts says.
Watts, a cybersecurity expert, says he's been tracking this sort of activity by the Russians for more than three years.
"It's a circular system. Sometimes the propaganda outlets themselves will put out false or manipulated stories. Other times,
the president will go with a conspiracy."
One example, he says, is Trump's claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration. "When they do
that, they'll then respond to the wiretapping claim with further conspiracy theories about that claim and that just amplifies
the message in the ecosystem," Watts says.
"Every time a conspiracy is floated from the administration, it provides every outlet around the world, in fact, an opportunity
to amplify that conspiracy and to add more manipulated truths or falsehoods onto it."
Watts says the effort is being conducted by a "very diffuse network." It involves competing efforts "even amongst hackers between
different parts of Russian intelligence and propagandists -- all with general guidelines about what to pursue, but doing it at
different times and paces and rhythms."
The White House has blamed Democrats for the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying the theory
is a way to shift the blame for their election loss.
But Watts says "it's way bigger" than that. "What was being done by nation-states in the social media influence landscape was
so much more significant than the other things that were being talked about," including the Islamic State's use of social media
to recruit followers, he says."
The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
Notable quotes:
"... Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure Zionist
and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch out
2018. ..."
"... But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without
Trump and we are seeing it play out now. ..."
"... America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction. ..."
"... Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic and
foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's "near abroad"
than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria, and they have no
intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and corporations are being
slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by all. ..."
"I won't be optimistic about AmeriKKKa until Russia and/or China announce a Zero Tolerance policy toward US military adventurism
in countries on the borders of Russia/China - by promising to bomb the continental USA if it attacks a Russia/China neighbor.
Imo it's absolutely essential to light a big bonfire under AmeriKKKa's Impunity. And it would be delightful, sobering,
and a big boost for Peace and Diplomacy to hear the Yankees whingeing about being threatened by entities quite capable of following
through on their threats."
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 19, 2017 11:10:32 AM | 14
Hell yes, I'd love that scenario, but never happen. Too much $to be made by kissing up to the empire.
Sad Canuck @ 31: Abso fukken 'lutely!!
b, you better change what you're smoken' if you believe the empire is going isolationist.
@48 They did not want him lol? So many comments in here make me chuckle.
Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure
Zionist and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch
out 2018.
But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with
or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
@26 "I think you would find that the vast majority of Americans would be quite happy to disengage militarily from the rest of
the world, and put resources at work on domestic problems."
Disengage militarily? I would like to think so sleepy but why do they keep getting so involved internationally? Instead of
concentrating on domestic issues putting 'America first' seems to mean bullying any country that doesn't do what it's told.
@ Debsisdead with the end of his comment
" America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction.
"
There are those that say the same (vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink) about China, so there might be some competition
in our world yet.
I , for one, want to end private finance and maybe give the China way a go. Anyone else? I did future studies in college and
am intrigued by planning processes at the scale that China has done 13 of....their 5-year plans.
May we live to see structural change in the way our species comports itself......soon, I hope
NemesisCalling, I suggest paying little to know attention to Trump's (or any other politician/oligarch) platitudes.
Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic
and foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's
"near abroad" than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria,
and they have no intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and
corporations are being slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by
all.
I remain amazed that people who KNOW that the MSM lies to us constantly, about things big and small, still believe with all
their hearts the MSM narrative that Trump is an "outsider" whom the Establishment hates and has fought against ever since they
gave him $5 billion in free advertising.
Disengage? In 2017, U.S. Special Operations forces, including Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets, deployed to 149 countries around
the world, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command. That's around 75 percent of the nations
on the planet.
What the vast majority of Americans might want has been cast aside by this president after he got their votes. There go hope
and change again, damn.
he Department of Justice is refusing to release details of the process that
led to FBI Director Robert Mueller being granted an ethics waiver to be able to serve as
special counsel investigating Trump's campaign involvement with Russia during the 2016
election.
On Friday, the agency released a one-sentence memo that confirmed Mueller was granted a
conflict-of-interest waiver to serve in the position.
The waiver is believed to be related to Mueller's previous work as a partner at WilmerHale
law firm, which is also the firm that represented former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort
and White House adviser Jared Kushner. However, documents signed by the Justice's top career
official, Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott School, provide no evidence as to the grounds
for the waiver. It's actually so vague that it doesn't even state why Mueller would
need the release.
"'Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.502(d), I hereby authorize Robert Mueller's participation in the
investigation into Russia's role in the presidential campaign of 2016 and all matters arising
from the investigation,' Schools wrote in the 'authorization' signed on May 18, one day after
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein formally appointed Mueller to the position ."
The Justice Management Division of the agency found a two-page "recommendation memorandum"
per POLITICO's request, but declined releasing it because it would interfere with the
"deliberative
process inside the department."
The secrecy revolving the situation could result in some Republican lawmakers and Trump
allies to raise doubts about the impartiality of the Mueller investigation. Experts are
troubled that the Justice Department hasn't been more open about the information of Mueller's
waiver.
"'I think it's sloppy,' said Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under
President George W. Bush. 'The conspiratorial side of me thinks somebody at Justice is not
giving you the explanation for the waiver because they want to create the impression that
Robert Mueller has a problem when Robert Mueller doesn't have a problem. This is going to
lead to Fox News conspiracy talk.'"
If FBI paid money for Steele dossier that would be a big scandal that can bury Mueller and Comey...
Notable quotes:
"... Congressional Republicans have long been suspicious of the dossier and now that it was discovered who funded, now Republicans are questioning whether the Justice Department and FBI are involved in it as well. ..."
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to say on Wednesday in front of
the House Judiciary Committee, whether the FBI paid for the infamous Trump dossier,
reports The
Daily Caller . He would neither confirm nor deny the FBI's involvement in the now-disproved
dossier that started the whole Russian collusion investigation against President Trump.
Rosenstein, who was grilled by the House Judiciary Committee, suggested that he knew the
answer to the question, which was posed by Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis.
"Did the FBI pay for the dossier?" DeSantis asked.
"I'm not in a position to answer that question," Rosenstein responded.
"Do you know the answer to the question?" the Republican DeSantis followed up.
"I believe I know the answer, but the Intelligence Committee is the appropriate committee "
Rosenstein began.
DeSantis interjected to assert that the Judiciary panel has "every right to the information"
about payments for the dossier.
The Russian dossier, which was written by British spy Christopher Steele and
commissioned to do so by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, has
been the starting point to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian collusion
in the 2016 election.
Congressional Republicans have long been suspicious of the dossier and now that it was
discovered who funded, now Republicans are questioning whether the Justice Department and FBI are
involved in it as
well.
"'According to some reports published earlier this year, Steele and the FBI struck an
informal agreement that he would be paid to continue his investigation into Trump's ties to
Russia. It has been reported that Steele was never paid for his work, though the FBI and DOJ
have not publicly disclosed those details,' reports The Daily Caller."
CNN had reported earlier this year that Steel was already compensated for some expenses from
his work investigating Trump and trying to dig up any dirt he could on the president.
The Deputy Attorney General told the House Judiciary Committee that he saw no good cause to
fire Mueller from conducting the investigation, but many Republicans believe the whole
investigation is now wrapped up in too many overlapping conflicts of interest
Conway appeared on Jesse Watters program, Watters' World, to talk about the newly
revealed content of text messages sent between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
When asked what she thought they meant when they said "they need to protect America from
Trump and need to have an insurance policy against his presidency," Conway tore into the
investigation's credibility.
"The fix was in against Donald Trump from the beginning, and they were pro-Hillary. We
understand that people have political views but they are expressing theirs with such animus and
such venom towards the now president of the United States they can't possibly be seen as
objective or transparent or even-handed or fair," she said.
As she spoke, the banner below Conway and Watters screamed "A COUP IN AMERICA?"
Watters proceeded to ask "how dangerous" Conway thought it was that people were "plotting
what appears to be some sort of subversion campaign" against Trump.
"It's toxic, it's lethal, and it may be fatal to the continuation of people arguing that
that matter is since behind us, he won he's the president, and the Mueller investigation is
something separate," she answered.
Conway then slammed critics for defending the integrity of the probe by alleging that Trump
is against the FBI, repeating the claim that he isn't under investigation, "we're told."
Released on Tuesday, Strzok and Page's messages referred to Trump as an "idiot" and "douche.
At one point, Strzok told Page he was considering "an insurance policy" if Trump were elected.
Page had also told Strzok that maybe he was meant to "protect the country from that menace,"
according to records reviewed by
Politico.
Watters assessed the texts as evidence of a coup, or sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of
power from the government, in America.
"The investigation into Donald Trump's campaign has been crooked from the jump. But the
scary part is we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his presidency
for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters. Now, if
that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America," he said.
It's pretty interesting fact: "Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID."
While you can't exclude that Russia favored Trump over Clinton and might be provided some token of support, you can't compare
Russia and Israel as for influence on the US domestic and foreign policy. And GB also have a say and connections (GB supported
Hillary and MI6 probably used dirty methods). KSA provided money to Hillary. Still there is multiple investigations of Russia
influence and none for those two players. That makes the current Russiagate current witch hunt is really scary.
The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large. ..."
"... Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin. ..."
"... There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com . ..."
"... Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017. ..."
"... The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria." ..."
"... "America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement." ..."
"... "The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher." ..."
"... How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur. ..."
"... Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID. ..."
"... And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism. ..."
"... It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. ..."
"... As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war. ..."
"... JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. ..."
"... As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items: ..."
"... The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States. ..."
"... Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises.... ..."
"... It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle ..."
"... All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed. ..."
"... They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it. ..."
"... "American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking". ..."
"... Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it". ..."
"... This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap. ..."
"... But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof. ..."
"... It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". ..."
"... Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA". ..."
"... I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation. ..."
"... After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House ..."
"... Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that. ..."
"... Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever. ..."
"... Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians. ..."
"... "German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency." ..."
"The two (Trump and Clinton) cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one
another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their
respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room."
"Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: Disgrace!"
- Vladimir Zhirinovsky - prominent Russian politician, leader of a major party in
parliament.
The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious
and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from
9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body
politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil
liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our
political elites and the country at large.
This time the generalized paranoia started under the nominally left of center administration
of Barack Obama in the closing months of his presidency. It has been fanned ever since by the
centrists in both Democratic and Republican parties who want to either remove from office or
politically cripple Donald Trump and his administration, that is to say, to overturn the
results at the ballot box on November 8, 2016.
Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was
the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking
the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our
enemies in the Kremlin.
Americans are wont to forget that there is a world outside the borders of the USA and that
others follow closely what is said and written in our media, especially by our political
leadership and policy elites. They forget or do not care how the accusations and threats we
direct at other countries in our domestic political squabbling, and still more the sanctions we
impose on our ever changing list of authoritarians and other real or imagined enemies abroad
might be interpreted there and what preparations or actions might be taken by those same
enemies in self-defense, threatening not merely American interests but America's physical
survival.
In no case is this more relevant than with respect to Russia, which, I remind readers, is
the only country on earth capable of turning the entire Continental United States into ashes
within a day. In point of fact, if Russia has prepared itself for war, as the latest issue of
Newsweek magazine tells us, we have no one but our political leadership to blame for
that state of affairs. They are tone deaf to what is said in Russia. We have no concern for
Russian national interests and "red lines" as the Russians themselves define them. Our Senators
and Congressmen listen only to what our home grown pundits and academics think the Russian
interests should be if they are to fit in a world run by us. That is why the Senate can vote
98-2 in favor of making the sanctions against Russia laid down by executive order of Barack
Obama into sanctions under federal legislation as happened this past summer.
There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have
been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication
from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium
News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the
side of the angels include TruthDig.com and
Antiwar.com .
The Russia-gate story has permutated over time as one or another element of the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Kremlin has become more or less
promising. But the core issue has always been the allegation of Russian hacking of DNC
computers on July 5, 2016 and the hand-over of thousands of compromising documents to Wikileaks
for the purpose of discrediting putative Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and throwing the
election to Donald Trump, who had at that time nearly clinched the Republican nomination.
Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian
hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former
intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an
inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons
outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in
Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017.
The VIPS material was largely ignored by mainstream media, as might be expected. An
editorial entitled "The unchecked threat from Russia" published by The Washington Post
yesterday is a prime example of how our media bosses continue to whip up public fury against
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin even when, by their own admission, "no
conclusive proof has surfaced."
The VIPS piece last July was based on the laws of physics, demonstrating that speed
limitations on transfer of data over the internet at the time when the crime is alleged to have
taken place rendered impossible the CIA, NSA and FBI scenario of Russian hacking In what
follows, I will introduce a very different type of evidence challenging the official US
intelligence story of Russian hacking and meddling in general, what I would call
circumstantial evidence that goes to the core issue of what the Kremlin really wanted.
Let us consider whether Mr. Putin had a motive to put his thumb on the scales in the American
presidential election.
In the U.S., that is a slam-dunk question. But that comes from our talking to ourselves in
the mirror. My evidence comes precisely from the other side of the issue: what the Kremlin
elites were saying about the US elections and their preferred candidate to win while the
campaign was still going on. I present it on a privileged basis because it is what I gathered
on my several visits to Moscow and talks with a variety of insiders close to Vladimir Putin
from September through the start of November, 2016. Moreover, there is no tampering with this
evidence on my part, because the key elements were published at the time I gathered them, well
before the US election. They appeared as incidental observations in lengthy essays dealing with
a number of subjects and would not have attracted the attention they merit today.
* * * *
Political talk shows are a very popular component of Russian television programming on all
channels, both state-run and commercial channels. They are mostly carried on prime time in the
evening but also are showing in mid-afternoon, where they have displaced soap operas and
cooking lessons as entertainment for housewives and pensioners. They are broadcast live either
to the Moscow time zone or to the Far East time zone. Given the fact that Russia extends over 9
time zones, they are also video recorded and reshown locally at prime time. In the case of the
highest quality and most watched programs produced by Vesti 24 for the Rossiya One channel,
they also are posted in their entirety and in the original Russian on youtube, and they are
accessible worldwide by anyone with a computer or tablet phone using a downloadable free
app.
I underline the importance of accessibility of these programs globally via live streaming or
podcasts on simple handheld gadgets. Russian speaking professionals in the States had every
opportunity to observe much of what I report below, except, of course, for my private
conversations with producers and panelists. But the gist of the mood in Moscow with respect to
the US elections was accessible to anyone with an interest. As you know, no one reported on it
at the time. American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking
since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be
thinking.
The panelists appearing on these different channels come from a rather small pool of Russian
legislators, including chairmen of the relevant committees of the Duma (lower house) and
Federation Council (upper house), leading journalists, think tank professors, retired military
brass. The politicians are drawn from among the most visible and colorful personalities in the
Duma parties, but also extend to Liberal parties such as Yabloko, which failed to cross the
threshold of 5% in legislative elections and received no seats in parliament.
Then there are very often a number of foreigners among panelists. In the past and at the
present, they are typically known for anti-Kremlin positions and so give the predominantly
patriotic Russian panelists an opportunity to cross swords, send off sparks and keep the
audience awake. These hostile foreigners coming from Ukraine or Poland are Russian speakers
from their childhood. The Americans or Israelis who appear are generally former Soviet citizens
who emigrated, whether before or after the fall of Communism, and speak native Russian.
"Freshness" is an especially valued commodity in this case, because there is a considerable
overlap in the names and faces appearing on these talks whatever the channel. For this there is
an objective reason: nearly all the Russian and even foreign guests live in Moscow and are
available to be invited or disinvited on short notice given that these talk programs can change
their programming if there is breaking news about which their audiences will want to hear
commentary. In my own case, I was flown in especially by the various channels who paid airfare
and hotel accommodation in Moscow as necessary on the condition that I appear only on their
shows during my stay in the city. That is to say, my expenses were covered but there was no
honorarium. I make this explicit to rebut in advance any notion that I/we outside panelists
were in any way "paid by the Kremlin" or restricted in our freedom of speech on air.
During the period under review, I appeared on both state channels, Rossiya-1 and Pervy
Kanal, as well as on the major commercial television channel, NTV. The dates and venues of my
participation in these talk shows are as follows:
September 11 – Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, Rossiya 1
September 26 - Sixty Minutes with Yevgeni Popov and Olga Skabeyeva, Rossiya 1
November 8-9 Time Will Tell.
For purposes of this essay, the pertinent appearances were on September 11 and 26. To this I
add the Sixty Minutes show of October 20 which I watched on television but which aired content
that I believe is important to this discussion.
My debut on the number one talk show in Russia, Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, on
September 11 was invaluable not so much for what was said on air but for the exchange I had
with the program's host, Vladimir Soloviev, in a five minute tête-à-tête in
the guests' lounge before the program went on air.
Soloviev obviously had not yet read his guest list, did not know who I am and stood ready to
respond to me when I walked up to him and unceremoniously put to him the question that
interested me the most: whom did he want to see win the US presidential election. He did not
hesitate, told me in no uncertain terms that he did not want to see Trump win because the man
is volatile, unpredictable and weak. Soloviev added that he and others do not expect anything
good in relations with the United States in general whoever won. He rejected the notion that
Trump's turning the Neocons out of government would be a great thing in and of itself.
As I now understand, Soloviev's resistance to the idea that Trump could be a good thing was
not just an example of Russians' prioritizing stability, the principle "better the devil you
know," meaning Hillary. During a recent chat with a Russian ambassador, someone also close to
power, I heard the conviction that the United States is like a big steamship which has its own
inertia and cannot be turned around, that presidents come and go but American foreign policy
remains the same. This view may be called cynical or realistic, depending on your taste, but it
is reflective of the thinking that comes out from many of the panelists in the talk shows as
you will find below in my quotations from the to-and-fro on air. It may also explain Soloviev's
negativism.
To appreciate what weight the opinions of Vladimir Soloviev carry, you have to consider just
who he is. That his talk show is the most professional from among numerous rival shows, that it
attracts the most important politicians and expert guests is only part of the story. What is
more to the point is that he is as close to Vladimir Putin as journalists can get.
In April, 2015 Vladimir Soloviev conducted a two hour interview with Putin that was aired on
Rossiya 1 under the title "The President." In early January 2016, the television documentary
"World Order," co-written and directed by Soloviev, set out in forceful terms Vladimir Putin's
views on American and Western attempts to stamp out Russian sovereignty that first were spoken
at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and have evolved and become ever more frank
since.
Soloviev has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of World Economics and International
Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was an active entrepreneur in the 1990s and spent
some time back then in the USA, where his activities included teaching economics at the
University of Alabama. He is fluent in English and has been an unofficial emissary of the
Kremlin to the USA at various times.
For all of these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that Vladimir Soloviev represents the
thinking of Russian elites close to their president, if not the views of Putin himself.
On September 27 , I took part in the Sixty Minutes talk show that was presented as a post
mortem of the first Trump-Clinton debate the day before. I direct attention to this show
because it demonstrates the sophistication and discernment of commentary about the United
States and its electoral process. All of this runs against the "slam-dunk" scenario based on a
cartoon-like representation of Russia and its decision makers.
The show's hosts tried hard to convey the essence of American political culture to their
audience and they did some effective research to this end. Whereas French and other Western
media devoted coverage on the day after the debates to the appearance of the American
presidential candidates and especially to Hillary (what else attracts comment from the male
world of journalism if not a lady's hair styling and sartorial choices), 'Sixty Minutes'
tweaked this aspect of the debates to find politically relevant commentary.
To make their point, presenter Yevgeny Popov came on stage in a blue suit and blue tie very
similar in coloring to Trump's, while his wife and co-presenter Olga Skabeyeva was wearing a
garment in the same red hue as Hillary. They proceeded to note that these color choices of the
candidates represented an inversion of the traditional colors of the Democratic and Republican
parties in American political tradition. And they took this a step further by declaring it to
be in line with the inversion of policies in the electoral platforms of the candidates. Hillary
had taken over the hawkish foreign policy positions of the Republicans and their
Neoconservative wing. Donald had taken over the dovish foreign policy positions normally
associated with Democrats. Moreover, Donald also had gone up against the free trade policies
that were an engrained part of Republican ideology up until now and were often rejected by
Democrats with their traditional financial backers from among labor unions. All of these
observations were essentially correct and astute as far as the campaigns went. It is curious to
hear them coming from precisely Russian journalists, when they were largely missed by West
European and American commentators.
As mentioned above, foreigners are often important to the Russian talk shows to add pepper
and salt. In this case, we were largely decorative. The lion's share of the program was shared
between the Russian politicians and journalists on the panel who very ably demonstrated in
their own persona that Russian elites were split down the middle on whether Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton was their preferred next occupant of the Oval Office
The reasons given were not what you heard within the USA: that Trump is vulgar, that Trump
is a bigot and misogynist. Instead the Russian Trump-skeptics were saying that he is impulsive
and cannot be trusted to act with prudence if there is some mishap, some accidental event
occurring between US and Russian forces in the field, for example. They gave expression to the
cynical view that the positions occupied by Trump in the pre-election period are purely
tactical, to differentiate himself from all competitors first in his own party during the
primaries and now from Hillary. Thus, Trump could turn out to be no friend of Russia on the day
after the elections.
A direct answer to these changes came from the pro-Trump members of the panel. It was best
enunciated by the senior politician in the room, Vyacheslav Nikonov. Nikonov is a Duma member
from Putin's United Russia party, the chair of the Education Committee in the 6th Duma. He is
also chair of a government sponsored organization of Russian civil society, Russian World,
which looks after the interests of Russians and Russian culture in the diaspora abroad.
Nikonov pointed to Trump's courage and determination which scarcely suggest merely tactical
considerations driving his campaign. Said Nikonov, Trump had gone up against the entire US
political establishment, against the whole of corporate mainstream media and was winning.
Nikonov pointed to the surge in Trump poll statistics in the couple of weeks preceding the
debate. And he ticked off the 4 swing states which Trump needed to win and where his fortunes
were rising fast. Clearly his presentation was carefully prepared, not something casual and
off-the-cuff.
During the exchange of doubters and backers of Trump among the Russians, one doubter spoke
of Trump as a "non-systemic" politician. This may be loosely interpreted a meaning he is
anti-establishment. But in the Russian context it had an odious connotation, being applied to
Alexei Navalny and certain members of the American- and EU-backed Parnas political movement,
and suggesting seditious intent.
In this connection, Nikonov put an entirely different spin on who Trump is and what he
represents as an anti-establishment figure. But then again, maybe such partiality runs in the
family. Nikonov is the grandson of Molotov, one of the leading figures who staged the Russian
Revolution and governed the young Soviet state.
Who won the first Trump-Clinton debate? Here the producers of Sixty Minutes gave the final
verdict to a Vesti news analyst from a remote location whose image was projected on a
wall-sized screen. We were told that the debate was a draw: Trump had to demonstrate that he is
presidential, which he did. Clinton had to demonstrate she had the stamina to resist the
onslaught of 90 minutes with Trump and she also succeeded.
The October 20 program Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, which I watched on television from
abroad, was devoted to the third Clinton-Trump debate. My single most important conclusion from
the show was that, notwithstanding the very diverse panel, there was a bemused unanimity among
them regarding the US presidential electoral campaign: that it was deplorable. They found both
candidates to be disgraceful due to their flagrant weaknesses of character and/or records in
office, but they were also disturbed by the whole political culture. Particular attention was
devoted to the very one-sided position of the American mass media and the centrist
establishments of both parties in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton. When Russians and
former Russians use the terms "McCarthyism" and "managed democracy" to describe the American
political process as they did on the show, they know acutely well whereof they speak.
Though flamboyant in his language the nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of
the LDPR Party, touched on a number of core concerns that bear repeating extensively, if not in
full:
"The debates were weak. The two cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to
one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by
their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room.
Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: disgrace! This is the worst
electoral campaign ever. And mostly what we see is the style of the campaign. However much
people criticize the USSR – the old fogies who ran it, one and the same, supposedly the
conscience of the world.
Now we see the same thing in the USA: the exceptional country – the country that has
bases everywhere, soldiers everywhere, is bombing everywhere in some city or other. They are
making their 'experiments.' The next experiment is to have a woman in the White House. It
will end badly.
Hillary has some kind of dependency. A passion for power – and that is dangerous for
the person who will have her finger on the nuclear button. If she wins, on November 9th the
world will be at the brink of a big war "
Zhirinovsky made no secret of his partiality for Trump, calling him "clean" and "a good man"
whereas Hillary has "blood on her hands" for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to her
policies as Secretary of State. But then again, Zhirinovsky has made his political career over
more than 30 years precisely by making outrageous statements that run up against what the
Russian political establishment says aloud. Before Trump came along, Zhirinovsky had been the
loudest voice in Russian politics in favor of Turkey and its president Erdogan, a position
which he came to regret when the Turks shot down a Russian jet at the Syrian border, causing a
great rupture in bilateral relations.
The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the
moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very
bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main
theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria."
This being Russia, one might assume that the deeply negative views of the ongoing
presidential election reflected a general hostility to the USA on the part of the presenter and
panelists. But nothing of the sort came out from their discussion. To be sure, there was the
odd outburst from Zhirinovsky, who repeated a catchy line that he has delivered at other talk
shows: essentially that the USA is eating Russia and the world's lunch given that it consumes
the best 40% of what the world produces while it itself accounts for just 20% of world GDP. But
otherwise the panelists, including Zhirinovsky, displayed informed respect and even admiration
for what the United States has achieved and represents.
The following snippets of their conversation convey this very well and do not require
attribution to one or another participant:
"America has the strongest economy, which is why people want to go there and there is a
lot for us to borrow from it. We have to learn from them, and not be shy about it."
"Yes, they created the conditions for business. In the morning you file your application.
After lunch you can open your business."
"America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand
precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever
becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach
agreement."
"The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it
attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers,
composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people
are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher."
How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the
US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military
powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between
Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that
the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to
its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay
will concur.
* * * *
Ever since his candidacy took off in the spring of 2016, both Liberal Interventionists and
Neoconservatives have been warning that a Donald Trump presidency would mean abandonment of US
global leadership. They equated Donald's "America First" with isolationism. After all, it was
in the openly "isolationist period" of American political history just before the outbreak of
WWII that the original America First slogan first appeared.
However, isolationism never left us, even as the United States became engaged in and
eventually dominated the world after the end of the Cold War. Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID.
And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often
just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their
concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives,
concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated
from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism.
It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual
pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations,
and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. Indeed, that is very often the case in
other countries, as well. The distinction is that the US footprint in the world is vastly
greater than that of other countries and policy decisions taken in Washington, especially in
the past 20 years of militarized foreign-policy making, spell war or peace, order or chaos in
the territories under consideration.
As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and
over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the
world into nuclear war.
It is a luxury we manifestly cannot afford to indulge ourselves.
But we all have to agree that the USA is the more infantile of all The Nations, and since
the end of the last war they have made no effort to grow up. They have created RussiaGate
where no other nation would dream up such Trivia.
JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. When the
American president is enemy, you are not American
Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell
up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq
was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no
exercises....
It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country.
They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in
an African jungle.
Please cut out the announcements of exercises after exercises, it is clogging the
airwaves. We are all tired of your stupid exercises... if you want to attack go ahead and get
your fat asses whipped like a slave running away from its masters.
Shameless cowards are now becoming highly annoying... it can be called Propaganda
terrorism. Cut that nonsense out. You cannot beat North Korea, you know it, the rest of the
world knows it. You cannot fight China or Russia, the rest of the world knows it ... so
please shut up once and for all.
You are terrorizing the airwaves with your exercise after exercise after exercise.
Practice control of the ships that are becoming a maritime hazzard to commercial ships. That
is what you need to practice.
Nobody is impressed with your over-bloated expensive war equipment which fail under war
conditions. Cut out the exercises before we start turning off our ears for your
propaganda.
YELLOW BELIED COWARDS!!!!! Go poison an innocent person or kill a child....it may make you
feel better... Big fat cowards.!
I am also very tired of the bluster . They flap their gums and taunt. Enough already . You
have made fools of yourselves in the eyes of the world .
All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea
paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South
Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is
a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly
being displayed.
They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made
to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it.
"American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since
that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking".
Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it".
The whole thing is orchestrated by the Zionist state within a state which controls not only America but most of the West -
and own the entire mainstream media. They cannot forgive Trump for wanting to make peace with Russia. Their hatred of
Christian Russia is visceral and unhinged.
'...by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."'
This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language
routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must
follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced.
Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all -
not the slightest scrap.
But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey
quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof.
It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not
going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".
Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding
Israel picked the "president of the USA".
That American children are murdering innocent children in foreign lands, for the benefit of,
not Israel, it is just a figment of the imagination, as the USSR was, and the USA is, but the
owners of Israel, City of London, Usury bankers.
Pedophile scum!
- understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".
The fraud is in every election district. Israel cannot afford the bussing of Liberals.
This is too large for some poor nation like Israel. You are making up "Israel", just like
Gordon Duff. It tells me you are the same as Gordon Duff.
What an excellent article. If only people who have a very small knowledge of Russia/USA
relations would bother to read this and reflect upon it, a lot of misconceptions could be
cleared up if goodwill is part of the picture.
I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror
operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's
the world we appear to have: selective cooperation.
I don't know if the FSB has the levels of electronics signals intelligence the US has, I
do know the US and Russia may have cooperated in raids resulting in deaths of two Caucaus
Emirates leaders in 2014-2015. I believe that group has since disbanded and members probably
blended into other terror groups.
The thing that is absolutely ridiculous is that the American media and Deep State are what
is causing this trouble. I don't know why they want to have a World War so badly, but the
only thing keeping our two countries from destruction is Vladimir Putin's hard work and good
nature, and Trump's defiance of his "staff."
These Deep State actors in the US have
hidey-holes they can run to in case of the unthinkable, but they couldn't care less about the
people of the US -- let alone Russia. Their day is coming, and they'll be praying for their
mountains to fall on them when it does.
Anyone in the US that's paying any attention at all
knows the real story on this, and none of those who do are blaming anyone in Russia. If the
day ever comes that the US Deep State takes to their bunkers, they better be prepared to stay
in there--Balrogs or no Balrogs--because those of us who manage to survive above will be
looking for their sorry azzes when they come out!!!
Just to take your comment a little further ;- get to know every plumber and builder in
your area as I am, get on a friendly basis and ask about these "Deep State actors in the US
have hidey-holes" over a pint or two.
Then I am starting a crowdfunding fund to bring in "hundreds of thousands" to pay them to
screw up their sewage facilities in their hidey-holes SO THEY CAN down in their own BS.
After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in
the White House - Uranium One gives Russia something they know all the details of and
something they know the US public won't take lightly, so they could easily have blackmailed Hitlery with leaking those details.
Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again,
looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that.
No need for paranoia, it is a veritable American love fest at the Kremlin, RIA, etc., ever
since the CIA informed Moscow that they had "information" on an imminent attack in
Russia.
Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even
stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever.
Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in
the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians.
Some people talk a good game while some people actually take action.
For those of you that have some video viewing time available , you will probably enjoy the
lecture at the National Press Club , not nearly well attended I might add for this quality
venue, of Gilbert Doctoro.
New legatum prosperity index is up: Europeans enjoy the greatest quality of life
worldwide, Russians fall into more impoverishment and low quality of life. Its no secret that, for the past 150 years, Russian's wealth, quality of life and life
expectancy is unacceptably low for European standards).
Norway, Finland,
Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark occupying the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th
places respectively.
- low for European standards ... ) .... Norway, Finland, Switzerland,
Sweden Netherlands and Denmark
When you do copyworks, include your source. RI is not for illiterate globalist bots who
cannot read an answer. The quality of trolls is now too low. The globalists are now hiring
junk?
"German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with
information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency."
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to
The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers
and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.
The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before
moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail
Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to
assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.
Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt
gripping the nation , believes that this
falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping
at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed
intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop
any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.
Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute
a "grave American national security threat."
Set of YouTube video on the subject. Some exchanges (especially the first two) are very interesting indeed. Although Rosenstein
mostly ignored the questions.
There are several facts which suggest that employees of CIA, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), sympathetic to the neoliberal/globalist wing of Democrat Party (Clinton wing), used the power of their offices and (with the
assistance of foreign nationals) tried to influence the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton, first to exonerate her and then obtain
information to prevent the election of Donald Trump, to collect "insurance" -- compromising materials on him in case he win, and after
his surprise win, to provide a basis for his impeachment and removal from the Office by forcing on his administration the Special Prosecutor.
From the Congressional investigations involving the Department of Justice and the FBI it looks like that those institutions are
protecting themselves at the expense of transparency and accountability to the American people.
In other words, the government employees involved consider the survival of the Deep State more important than the survival of the
Constitution. That is the definition of national security state.
"... Comey, for his part, wrote a memo alleging Trump had asked him to drop his investigation into Flynn, an act which some say could constitute obstruction of justice and thus grounds for seeking Trump's impeachment. ..."
Comey, for his part, wrote a memo alleging Trump had asked him to drop his investigation into Flynn, an act which some say
could constitute obstruction of justice and thus grounds for seeking Trump's impeachment.
"... Here you had Obama's people using the NSA to spy on his adversaries, and apparently include the CIA, the FBI, and members of the Department of Justice in that loop, in a manner that was not approved of by any court, that was not approved by even a FISA court – the special court that monitors certain kinds of surveillance," he said. ..."
"... "Just because a conversation involves a foreign official doesn't allow you to illegally tape it, illegally monitor it, or illegally record it when a U.S. citizen is on there, particularly when it's your political adversary," Barnes explained. ..."
"Yes, there is," Barnes replied. "In fact, it's one of the directions that a future
investigation can take. A future investigation doesn't have to focus on whatever it is the
Democrats or liberals want. It can focus on the illegal leaks that took place."
"As I mentioned the other day to a liberal lawyer friend of mine, the worst thing ever
accused concerning Nixon was about using private resources to try to illegally spy on people.
Here you had Obama's people using the NSA to spy on his adversaries, and apparently include
the CIA, the FBI, and members of the Department of Justice in that loop, in a manner that was
not approved of by any court, that was not approved by even a FISA court – the special
court that monitors certain kinds of surveillance," he said.
"Just because a conversation involves a foreign official doesn't allow you to illegally
tape it, illegally monitor it, or illegally record it when a U.S. citizen is on there,
particularly when it's your political adversary," Barnes explained.
"I'm sure the liberals would go nuts if Trump tomorrow started listening in on every
conversation Obama had with anybody that's foreign, or that Bill Clinton had with anybody
that's foreign, or that Hillary Clinton had with anybody that's foreign. So it's a dangerous,
precarious path that Obama has opened up, and hopefully there is a full investigation into that
activity," he said.
"You clearly also have lots of illegal leaks going on, particularly as it related to the
recent Yemen issue involving the widow of the Navy SEAL who passed way, that became a big issue
at the State of the Union. There you had people reporting that no intelligence was gathered.
Well, that's an illegal leak. It turns out that they're wrong, they were lying about
what intelligence developed or the fact that intelligence did develop, but they
shouldn't have been out there saying anything like that," he noted.
"There are people willing to leak the most sensitive national security secrets about any
particular matter, solely to have a one-day political hit story on Trump. These are people who
are violating their oath, and violating the law. Hopefully there is ultimately criminal
punishment," Barnes urged.
"This is far worse than the Plame matter that got all that attention, that got a special
prosecutor in W's reign. This is far, far worse than any of that. This is putting national
security at risk. This is an effective de facto coup attempt by elements of the deep state. So
hopefully there's a meaningful investigation and a meaningful prosecution of these people who
have engaged in reckless criminal acts for their personal political partisan purposes," he
said.
rumors
, denials, whistleblowers
,
backlash , demands, threats,
lies , bias, and
anti-bias surrounding Robert Mueller and his investigation, President Trump said Sunday
that he is not considering firing the Special Counsel.
"No, I'm not," Trump told reporters, when asked if he intended to fire Mueller, according to
Politico .
The president was returning to the White House from a weekend at the Camp David presidential
retreat.
Trump's allies complained
this weekend about the way Mueller's team went about obtaining from the presidential
transition. Mueller's spokesman Peter Carr said Sunday that the office had followed appropriate
steps to obtain the transition emails. Pro-Trump lawmakers and pundits also have accused the
special counsel's office of bias after it was revealed that two FBI officials who previously
served on Mueller's team had exchanged anti-Trump text messages.
And while Trump said "I'm not,"
Axios notes that he did criticize the fact that Mueller accessed
"many tens of thousands" of emails from the presidential transition, saying it was "not
looking good."
seth? he was the guy that stole the dnc and podesta emails (well at least the dnc emails)
and got them to julian assange. after he was murdered (well at least shot twice) on the
streets of d.c. (he actually died in a hospital; probably bears some looking into), julian
offered a reward for info on it, making many believe he was wiki's source.
seymour hersh, who followed the case closely, thinks the same, but agrees with the d.c.
police that he was just mugged, not shot by say hillary and podesta using imran awan or
something. http://archive.is/lD4BV if
so, for a lucky lady that hillary clinton has some real bad luck. but it is poetically
fitting that someone who actually killed dozens of people as a private citizen (and maybe a
million as a public servant), would be convicted in the public's eye of the one she didn't
really do.
Mueller has painted himself into a cesspool that is exploding. If he had an ounce of sense
or honor he would get the eff out before he has to start covering his own tracks. But don't
bet on Mueller doing the right thing. His pals in politics and the press have made him out to
be some kind of saint when he really is all t'aint, no saint (don't ask me what t'aint is,
ask someone else.)
Don't fire Mueller now- the cesspool is bursting at the seems and Mueller is standing
right under it.
It makes little sense to me that if Seth Rich was an idealistic young man, standing on
principle and conviction, who along with his brother contacted WikiLeaks and arranged to give
it evidence of Hillary's and Debbie's treachery against Sanders, why he would then have been
reported to be looking forward to joining the Hillary campaign staff in the Brooklyn
headquarters.
CrowdStrike (run by Shawn Henry, who is a former FBI official, promoted by Mueller), which
provided the narrative to the DNC that the "Russians did it," has never been independently
verified in their conclusions by the FBI. Or Mueller. Pull that thread and the sweater starts
to unravel.
Mueller doesn't have it in him to step aside. Therefore he needs to be indicted for
prosecutorial abuse. Slap his ass down hard. Handcuffs would be a nice touch.
Mueller didn't oppose the raid of Paul Manafort at 5 a.m. in the morning with guns drawn.
Sounds like a good law enforcement technique for the buzzard.
"... What about the Logan Act ? The Act, enacted in 1799, around the time of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, prohibits private citizens from unauthorized "correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." ..."
"... Right off the bat, the Act appears to violate freedom of speech. And as Parry writes, "That law was never intended to apply to incoming officials in the transition period between elected presidential administrations." ..."
"... I hold no brief for Flynn, whose conduct while working for Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan, his dubious efforts on behalf of Turkey's strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his apparent financial conflicts of interest are enough to make anyone cringe. But that cannot justify what the FBI did in this plea case. ..."
"... Government law-enforcement agencies should not be allowed to administer credibility tests to Americans or others. If they have evidence of real ..."
One of the unfortunate ironies of the manufactured "Russiagate" controversy is the perception of the FBI as a friend of liberty and
justice. But the FBI has never been a friend of liberty and justice. Rather, as James Bovard
writes , it "has a long
record of both deceit and incompetence. Five years ago, Americans learned that the FBI was teaching its agents that 'the FBI has
the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedom of others.' This has practically been the Bureau's motif since its
creation in 1908 . The FBI has always used its 'good guy' image to keep a lid on its crimes."
Bovard has made a vocation of cataloging the FBI's many offenses against liberty and justice, for which we are forever in his
debt.
Things are certainly not different today. Take the case of Michael Flynn, the retired lieutenant general who spent less than a
month as Donald Trump's national-security adviser. Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in connection with conversations
he had with Russia's then-ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, between Trump's election and inauguration. One need not
be an admirer of Flynn – and for many reasons I certainly am not – to be disturbed by how the FBI has handled this case.
One ought to be immediately suspicious whenever someone is charged with or pleads guilty to lying to the FBI without any underlying
crime being charged. Former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew C. McCarthy
points
out :
When a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty
to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea
proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken
by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the
investigation.
That is not happening in Flynn's situation. Instead, like [former Trump foreign-policy "adviser" George] Papadopoulos, he is
being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime.
When the FBI questioned Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak, it already had the transcripts of those conversations – the
government eavesdrops on the representatives of foreign governments, among others, and Flynn had been identified, or "unmasked,"
as the ambassador's conversation partner. The FBI could have simply told Flynn the transcripts contained evidence of a crime (assuming
for the sake of argument they did) and charged him with violating the Logan Act or whatever else the FBI had in mind.
But that's not what happened. Instead, the FBI asked Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak, apparently to test him. If he
lied (which would mean he's pretty stupid since he once ran the Defense Intelligence Agency and must have known about the transcripts!)
or had a bad memory, he could have been charged with lying to the FBI.
What is arguably most disturbing about this case is that then-National Security Adviser Flynn was pushed into a perjury trap
by Obama administration holdovers at the Justice Department who concocted an unorthodox legal rationale for subjecting Flynn to an
FBI interrogation four days after he took office, testing Flynn's recollection of the conversations while the FBI agents had transcripts
of the calls intercepted by the National Security Agency.
In other words, the Justice Department wasn't seeking information about what Flynn said to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak
– the intelligence agencies already had that information. Instead, Flynn was being quizzed on his precise recollection of the conversations
and nailed for lying when his recollections deviated from the transcripts.
For Americans who worry about how the pervasive surveillance powers of the US government could be put to use criminalizing
otherwise constitutionally protected speech and political associations, Flynn's prosecution represents a troubling precedent.
Why didn't the FBI charge Flynn with an underlying crime? It might be because his conversations with Kislyak were not criminal.
McCarthy writes:
A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the
Russians – initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing
the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis
for a "collusion" case arising out of Russia's election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime – he'd
be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.
David Stockman shows
that the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller themselves indicate the Flynn-Kislyak conversations contained no evidence of criminal
behavior.
Flynn spoke to Kislyak to ask that Russia not escalate tensions after President Obama imposed sanctions last December
for the alleged election meddling and to askthatRussia not vote to condemn Israel , via a UN Security
Council resolution, for its illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land. In other words, not only were Flynn's discussions with
Kislyak unexceptional – presidential transition-team foreign-policy officials have spoken with representatives of other governments
in the past – but the content of those discussions should have raised no suspicions. Would non-escalation of the sanctions controversy
or a UN veto have undermined Obama's foreign policy? I don't see how. (True, the Obama administration abstained on the resolution,
but would Obama have objected had Russia vetoed it? By the way, Russia voted for it, and the resolution passed, as it should have.)
The Flynn plea certainly does nothing to indicate "collusion" with the Russians. For one thing, the conversations were after the
election. And perhaps more important, Kislyak was not looking for favors from Flynn; on the contrary, Flynn was lobbying the Russians
(successfully on the sanctions – Vladimir Putin did not retaliate – and unsuccessfully on the UN resolution.) Where's the evidence
of Russian influence on the Trump team? There was foreign influence, but it was from Israel, a
regular meddler in the American political process . All indications are that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked Trump son-in-law
and special envoy to everywhere Jared Kushner to lobby the world to defeat the UN resolution. Kushner, who has helped
finance
illegal Israeli settlements , then directed Flynn to call every Security Council member, not just Russia.
What about the Logan
Act ? The Act, enacted in 1799, around the time of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, prohibits private citizens from unauthorized
"correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures
or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United
States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years,
or both."
Right off the bat, the Act appears to violate freedom of speech. And as Parry writes, "That law was never intended to apply
to incoming officials in the transition period between elected presidential administrations."
Note also that only two indictments
have been brought in 218 years: in 1803 and 1852. Both cases were dropped. Far more serious contacts with foreign governments have
occurred. In 1968 Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon (with help from Henry Kissinger who was working in the Johnson
administration) had a representative
persuade
the president of South Vietnam to boycott the peace talks President Lyndon Johnson had been arranging with North Vietnam. That
decision most likely prolonged the Vietnam war and resulted in combat deaths that would not have occurred. Unlike the Flynn case,
Nixon's action undercut the sitting president's policy and, more important, the interests of the American people.
I hold no brief for Flynn, whose
conduct while working for
Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan,
his dubious efforts
on behalf of Turkey's strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his apparent financial conflicts of interest are enough to make anyone
cringe. But that cannot justify what the FBI did in this plea case.
Government law-enforcement agencies should not be allowed to administer credibility tests to Americans or others. If they
have evidence of real offenses against persons and property, bring charges. Otherwise, leave us all alone.
As "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"
does not have time frame they are not limited to election campaign and allow fishing expedition into Trump business dealings.
Notable quotes:
"... any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; ..."
"... any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; ..."
After this striking admission, in effect acknowledging the weakness of the "Russian
collusion" narrative more than year into the investigation and media hysteria, CNN goes on to
report that these claimed grand jury subpoenas extend completely outside the scope of the
supposed "Russia" investigation. CNN describes some subpoenas as "unconnected to the 2016
elections" and gives examples, including the tenant lists of Trump Organization properties and
documents related to the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.
For the record, according to his order of appointment ,
Mueller's independent investigation was to be limited to:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a).
Regulation 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a) is part of the federal regulations authorizing special
counsels. It expands a special counsel's jurisdiction to crimes, such as perjury or obstruction
of justice, that interfere with his original named responsibility.
"... Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) caused a stir late Friday when he questioned the legitimacy of the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) caused a stir late Friday when he questioned the
legitimacy of the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into
potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Cornyn spoke out via Twitter, in response to a tweet by former Attorney General Eric Holder,
who defended Mueller against criticism and against efforts to urge the president to remove him
from his post.
Speaking on behalf of the vast majority of the American people, Republicans in Congress be
forewarned:any attempt to remove Bob Mueller will not be tolerated.These are BS attacks on
him/his staff that are blatantly political-designed to hide the real wrongdoing. Country not
party
In response, Cornyn tweeted to Holder, "You don't" (referring to Holder's claim to be
speaking "on behalf of the vast majority of the American people."
He added later that "Mueller needs
to clean house of partisans," referring to reports that FBI agent Peter Strzok had been removed
from the investigation due to anti-Trump texts, and that other lawyers on the Mueller team have
expressed strongly anti-Trump feelings or supported the campaign of his 2016 opponent, former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Later, asked by the Washington Post 's in-house liberal columnist, Greg Sargent,
whether he would accept the legitimacy of Mueller's investigation, Cornyn suggested that would
depend on the outcome:
The left-wing HuffPost translated that remark as meaning that Cornyn would only consider the
probe legitimate if "if Republicans like his findings."
However, a more generous interpretation would be that Cornyn would wait to see if Mueller
remained within his mandate, or used his sweeping powers to investigated unrelated matters.
The Russia investigation being overseen by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is beyond
corrupt, beyond political and has now turned into an open-ended fishing expedition.
Rosenstein, who like Special Counsel Robert Mueller, has glaring, inexcusable conflicts of
interest in the case, insisted to Fox News' Chris Wallace that he will keep Mueller from
expanding his s not on a witch hunt.
"If he finds evidence of a crime that's within in the scope of what Director Mueller and I
have agreed is the appropriate scope of this investigation, then he can," Rosenstein said on
"Fox News Sunday." "If it's something outside that scope, he needs to come to the acting
attorney general, at this time me, for permission to expand his investigation."
Rosenstein says he won't let the special counsel turn into a fishing expedition? It already
has. The whole investigation was supposed to be about President Trump's campaign supposedly
colluding with the Russians. This has gone on 11 months, no smoking gun proving it ever
surfaced.
Yet, instead of ending it there, Mueller is reportedly now looking into the finances of
President Trump and the Trump Organization and associates of President Trump. He has impaneled
a grand jury in Washington, D.C., where the president got a little over four percent of the
vote.
What Rosenstein really said was that he has now given Mueller the green light to do whatever
he wants. Even respected legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a Democrat, has said Rosenstein needs
to recuse himself.
After all, Rosenstein is likely going to be a witness in the investigation that he himself
caused because he took the lead in writing the letter to President Trump on why former FBI
Director James Comey should be fired. Mueller reportedly regards that as possible obstruction
of justice.
Rosenstein is also the guy who appointed Robert Mueller and apparently either didn't know or
didn't care about the fact that the day before he was named special counsel, Mueller
interviewed with President Trump for the FBI director's job. You can't make this up.
Rosenstein has sat by while Mueller, with an unlimited budget, has assembled a team of 16
lawyers. Half have made political donations, shockingly, all to Democrats. How is that OK? If
the tables were turned, would a Democrat allow a special counsel to only appoint Republican
donors?
It all comes down to this: Does Rod Rosenstein know what is going to happen if Mueller's
mission creep continues to go unchecked? How does he think voters are going to feel? How many
Trump supporters will feel robbed of their right and their vote in the free election of the
president of the United States?
That would be bad for the country. It would be bad for the system of justice. And it would
be bad for anyone who believes in a constitutional republic.
Adapted from Sean Hannity's monologue on "Hannity," Aug. 7, 2017
Robert Mueller does have massive conflict of interest -- Strzok-gate proves his inability to
run a dispassionate investigation
Notable quotes:
"... we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his presidency for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters. Now, if that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America." ..."
Waters said, "The investigation into Donald Trump's campaign has been crooked from the jump.
But the scary part is we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his
presidency for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters.
Now, if that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America."
"... Flynn asked Kislyak for help in blocking or postponing a Security Council resolution denouncing Israel, and to tell Vladimir Putin not to go ballistic over President Obama's expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats. This is what security advisers do. Why Flynn let himself be ensnared in a perjury trap, when he had to know his calls were recorded, is puzzling. ..."
"... Second, it is said Trump obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey for refusing to cut slack for Flynn. But even Comey admits Trump acted within his authority. And Comey had usurped the authority of Justice Department prosecutors when he announced in July 2016 that Hillary Clinton ought not to be prosecuted for having been "extremely careless" in transmitting security secrets over her private email server. We now know that the first draft of Comey's statement described Clinton as "grossly negligent," the precise statute language for an indictment. ..."
"... Comey has also admitted he leaked to The New York Times details of a one-on-one with Trump to trigger the naming of a special counsel -- to go after Trump. And that assignment somehow fell to Comey's predecessor, friend, and confidant Robert Mueller. Mueller swiftly hired half a dozen prosecutorial bulldogs who had been Clinton contributors, and Andrew Weinstein, a Trump hater who had congratulated Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out Trump's travel ban. FBI official Peter Strzok had to be been removed from the Mueller probe for hatred of Trump manifest in emails to his FBI lady friend. Strzok was also involved in the investigation of Clinton's email server and is said to have been the one who persuaded Comey to tone down his language about her misconduct, and let Hillary walk. ..."
"... There are other reasons to believe Trump may survive the deep state-media conspiracy to break his presidency, overturn his mandate, and reinstate a discredited establishment. Trump has Fox News and fighting congressmen behind him and the mainstream media is deeply distrusted and widely detested. And there is no Democratic House to impeach him or Democratic Senate to convict him. Moreover, Trump is not Nixon, who, like Charles I, accepted his fate and let the executioner's sword fall with dignity. If Trump goes, one imagines, he will not go quietly. ..."
"... I think the surprise is the degree and extent to which he is surrounded by hostile elements pretending to be disloyal and even when revealed like Comey and Sessions and Rosenstein they cannot be dislodged without great cost. ..."
"... The balance of evidence does not fall on Trump. The preponderance of evidence from Wasserman Schultz and her Pakistani technicians, from rigging the DNC against Sanders, from the McCain/FBI Dossier to justify wiretapping the RNC candidate, the pay for play Clinton Foundation and Clinton bankrolling the DNC in exchange for full control of the party, murdered members of the DNC like Seth Rich, the collusion between the CIA, FBI, DOJ, IRS, State Department and White House, etc etc etc. ..."
"... Beyond the Mueller investigation is the character assassination which has also backfired proving there are far more democrats and democratic donors engaged in rape, pedophilia and sexual harassment which is more of the same type of character assassination Hillary used by calling Trump and his base deplorables. ..."
"... People in the DNC and the Federal Govt were scared of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama but I truly think the DNC is under-estimating the degree they should be afraid of Trump. ..."
"... Of course, in reality there was NO hack. The emails were LEAKED by someone within the DNC who was utterly disgusted with the corruption and the sabotaging of Sanders nomination campaign to prevent any threat to the coronation of Empress Shrillary. ..."
"... IMHO its very likely that the leaker was indeed Seth Rich. Does anyone really believe in a "botched robbery" were the thief didn't steal his wallet or phone or watch? ..."
"... At this point there is an ocean of evidence that says Russia did NOTHING at all. More and more the revelations are that the Clinton slime machine moved on from Bernie Sanders to Trump without breaking stride. ..."
"... The Mueller shenanigans have for months been laid out for all to see by Andrew C. McCarthy, who ironically is a confirmed Putin-hater. More recently Victor Davis Hanson weighed in at long last, and it was a doozy. ..."
"... The Muller team is loaded with rabid Trump haters, which implies he either biased and out to get Trump, or just dumb. It has been very obvious from the moment Trump won the election that a large contingent of the government establishment has been determined to find a way to force him from office. ..."
"... My primary complaint with Trump is that in foreign policy, he has done nothing but endorse and continue the murderous and shameful policies of his predecessors: back Israel unequivocally, in spite of their record of aggression, back Saudi Arabia, ignoring the absolute evil of their country, pretend that Russia and Iran are the greatest evil in the world, with no evidence to support it. If there is a behind the scenes deep state, it consists of those who manage to continue this pattern, no matter if the president is an Evangelical or a Marxist. Foreign policy aside, he does have the interests of the common man at heart, and a very enthusiastic backing from "Joe six-pack" America, the America the left loathes. ..."
"... Listen to the speakers at political rallies, if they are only demonizing the other side in an unfocussed and vague way, this is what they are doing. It is a strategy of "divide and conquer." ..."
"... Those, who vote for one party or the other above all else, no matter whom the party nominates or what the party does, lawful or not, are engaging in the same political factionalism, about which Washington warned. Both parties have to be made to protect the Constitution and respect the rule of law. That is much more important than which party wins. At this point, neither party gives much of a damn about the Constitution or the law. The only goal is to win at any cost, vying for the attention of their globalist string-pullers. ..."
Flynn asked Kislyak for help in blocking or postponing a Security Council resolution
denouncing Israel, and to tell Vladimir Putin not to go ballistic over President Obama's
expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats. This is what security advisers do. Why Flynn let himself be
ensnared in a perjury trap, when he had to know his calls were recorded, is puzzling.
Second, it is said Trump obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey for
refusing to cut slack for Flynn. But even Comey admits Trump acted within his authority. And
Comey had usurped the authority of Justice Department prosecutors when he announced in July
2016 that Hillary Clinton ought not to be prosecuted for having been "extremely careless" in
transmitting security secrets over her private email server. We now know that the first draft
of Comey's statement described Clinton as "grossly negligent," the precise statute language for
an indictment.
We also now know that helping to edit Comey's first draft to soften its impact was Deputy
FBI Director Andrew McCabe. His wife, Jill McCabe, a candidate for state senate in Virginia,
received $467,000 in campaign contributions from the PAC of Clinton bundler Terry
McAuliffe.
Comey has also admitted he leaked to The New York Times details of a one-on-one with Trump
to trigger the naming of a special counsel -- to go after Trump. And that assignment somehow
fell to Comey's predecessor, friend, and confidant Robert Mueller. Mueller swiftly hired half a
dozen prosecutorial bulldogs who had been Clinton contributors, and Andrew Weinstein, a Trump
hater who had congratulated Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out
Trump's travel ban. FBI official Peter Strzok had to be been removed from the Mueller probe for
hatred of Trump manifest in emails to his FBI lady friend. Strzok was also involved in the
investigation of Clinton's email server and is said to have been the one who persuaded Comey to
tone down his language about her misconduct, and let Hillary walk.
In Mueller's tenure, still no Trump tie to the hacking of the DNC has been found. But a
connection between Hillary's campaign and Russian spies -- to find dirt to smear and destroy
Trump and his campaign -- has been fairly well established.
By June 2016, the Clinton campaign and DNC had begun shoveling millions of dollars to the
Perkins Coie law firm, which had hired the oppo research firm Fusion GPS, to go dirt-diving on
Trump. Fusion contacted ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who had ties to former KGB and
FSB intelligence agents in Russia. They began to feed Steele, who fed Fusion, which fed the
U.S. anti-Trump media with the alleged dirty deeds of Trump in Moscow hotels. While the truth
of the dirty dossier has never been established, Comey's FBI rose like a hungry trout on
learning of its contents. There are credible allegations Comey's FBI sought to hire Steele and
used the dirt in his dossier to broaden the investigation of Trump -- and that its contents
were also used to justify FISA warrants on Trump and his people.
This week, we learned that the Justice Department's Bruce Ohr had contacts with Fusion
during the campaign, while his wife actually worked at Fusion investigating Trump. This thing
is starting to stink.
Is the Trump investigation the rotten fruit of a poisoned tree? Is Mueller's Dump Trump team
investigating the wrong campaign?
There are other reasons to believe Trump may survive the deep state-media conspiracy to
break his presidency, overturn his mandate, and reinstate a discredited establishment. Trump
has Fox News and fighting congressmen behind him and the mainstream media is deeply distrusted
and widely detested. And there is no Democratic House to impeach him or Democratic Senate to
convict him. Moreover, Trump is not Nixon, who, like Charles I, accepted his fate and let the
executioner's sword fall with dignity. If Trump goes, one imagines, he will not go
quietly.
In the words of the great Jerry Lee Lewis, there's gonna be a "whole lotta shakin' goin'
on."
Trump has had to work with corrupt officials in govt, overwhelming bureaucracy, unions, media
and criminal elements. All present in anti-Trump DC.
I think the surprise is the degree and extent to which he is surrounded by hostile
elements pretending to be disloyal and even when revealed like Comey and Sessions and
Rosenstein they cannot be dislodged without great cost.
The balance of evidence does not fall on Trump. The preponderance of evidence from
Wasserman Schultz and her Pakistani technicians, from rigging the DNC against Sanders, from
the McCain/FBI Dossier to justify wiretapping the RNC candidate, the pay for play Clinton
Foundation and Clinton bankrolling the DNC in exchange for full control of the party,
murdered members of the DNC like Seth Rich, the collusion between the CIA, FBI, DOJ, IRS,
State Department and White House, etc etc etc.
There is no equivalent trail of collusion, corruption, fraud, slander, sedition etc from
Trump, the GOP or the Conservative Party while the DNC and the Mueller investigation
reeks.
Beyond the Mueller investigation is the character assassination which has also backfired
proving there are far more democrats and democratic donors engaged in rape, pedophilia and
sexual harassment which is more of the same type of character assassination Hillary used by
calling Trump and his base deplorables.
I think Trump is playing nice and being patient. He is fighting back but with great
restraint. I don't think Trump has pulled out all guns. My guess, if and when this does not
work, then Sessions and Rosenstein will be fired and replaced with people who will have
special prosecutors investigate the Mueller investigation, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Obama,
the FBI and the DOJ. Imagine how devastating it would be to release information proving Bill
Clintons rapes and murders. Hillary may be a master at deflection and obfuscation but Trump
will scorch and burn. Of this I have no doubt. Infact, it would not surprise me if Trump has
someone in the intelligence community reporting directly to him and covertly performing these
investigations so Trump can either scorch and burn in the media, in the press room or to
appoint special counsels for what I cited above.
People in the DNC and the Federal Govt were scared of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama
but I truly think the DNC is under-estimating the degree they should be afraid of Trump.
"In Mueller's tenure, still no Trump tie to the hacking of the DNC has been found."
Of course, in reality there was NO hack. The emails were LEAKED by someone within the DNC
who was utterly disgusted with the corruption and the sabotaging of Sanders nomination
campaign to prevent any threat to the coronation of Empress Shrillary.
IMHO its very likely that the leaker was indeed Seth Rich. Does anyone really believe in a
"botched robbery" were the thief didn't steal his wallet or phone or watch?
The media tells us this administrations support is waning, so impeachment is a hot topic. I am
not convinced the American people en mass will support the process.
Most of these comments are almost as ridiculous as 'RussiaGate' itself. One must have a very
strong bias to believe any of this (I am a lifelong Democrat, but I'm still able to think).
At this point there is an ocean of evidence that says Russia did NOTHING at all. More and
more the revelations are that the Clinton slime machine moved on from Bernie Sanders to Trump
without breaking stride.
"Unfortunately, your nay-sayers seem confined to calling you a "Do-Do Head" and other remarks
more suited to a preschool classroom."
Amen to that. They might be willfully ignorant. The Mueller shenanigans have for months
been laid out for all to see by Andrew C. McCarthy, who ironically is a confirmed
Putin-hater. More recently Victor Davis Hanson weighed in at long last, and it was a doozy.
The neocons forgot that Richard Nixon saved Israel in the 1973 war. He emptied the NATO
reserves to replenish their lost weapons. Had he not done this, maybe a negotiated peace
based on a fair fight would have negated many of the problems we face today? Then Ford came
along and they realized Oops! A mistake has been made. Carter stopped drinking the neocon
KoolAide when the facts became irrefutable. Comparing Nixon to Trump is a non-starter. Nixon
had an incredibly high-IQ and he was pro-America first, second, .nth.
I remain a huge fan of Pres Nixon. I often think he should have fought it out. Having chosen
not to do so – he did indeed go quietly. And he did so for reasons unrelated to
Watergate.
He also remains one of the most astute and intelligent men we have ever had in the WH. Had
he been an insider, he would not have had faced the storm that came by way a lot of
hyperbolic nonsense. It easy to forget how much he and his admin accomplished despite the
period.
I remain supportive of Pres. Trump and despite areas of disagreement, I have yet to see
any evidence that would even hint that he should resign. I don't think there's any evidence that the country is uniquely on a path to destruction
from Pres Trump admin.
-- -- -- -- -- --
"4 indictment and or guilt pleas. Nothing there you say?"
I don't think you grasp the breadth that a SP has. It is virtually limitless. That means
one can indicted for something that is accused years before and totally unrelated to the
original purposes of the appointment. It was that breadth that bothered Pres. Nixon. And as
it turned out he was concerned with good reason.
-- -- -- -- -- -
"Middle East was causing a huge recession that led to Democratic wave in 1974."
The die were cast, despite all of the issues, Pres Nixon out maneuvered and outsmarted his
critics on the issues and they bit one card, charges of misbehavior on the heels of a very
contentious foreign policy. He could have only survived had he just chosen to readily give on
the plotters and moved on. Pardoning them later.
His choice to protect his legacy in its entirety -- led to bad decisions, that fed the
appearance of guilt -- when the tapes came out --
it was done, despite little of anything incriminating on them. He chose to depart quietly.
And in the end, so nil was his accusations that he has had his tenure revived and I suspect
with time, that will continue.
The Muller team is loaded with rabid Trump haters, which implies he either biased and out
to get Trump, or just dumb. It has been very obvious from the moment Trump won the election
that a large contingent of the government establishment has been determined to find a way to
force him from office.
This is an obvious truth, whether you want to call it a deep state conspiracy or something
else. Trump is an imperfect man, but he has good ideas and plans for improving the life of
the ordinary citizen.
One of the ways I know he is essentially decent is the hysterical hatred the left has for
him. The left is the true enemy of this country, not Russia or radical Islam. In the past 50
years they have done great harm to this country.
The Conservative establishment has been utterly ineffective at stopping the destructive
onslaght of the left, and in matters of foreign policy, have proven to be thoroughly corrupt
and dishonest.
My primary complaint with Trump is that in foreign policy, he has done nothing but
endorse and continue the murderous and shameful policies of his predecessors: back Israel
unequivocally, in spite of their record of aggression, back Saudi Arabia, ignoring the
absolute evil of their country, pretend that Russia and Iran are the greatest evil in the
world, with no evidence to support it. If there is a behind the scenes deep state, it
consists of those who manage to continue this pattern, no matter if the president is an
Evangelical or a Marxist. Foreign policy aside, he does have the interests of the common man
at heart, and a very enthusiastic backing from "Joe six-pack" America, the America the left
loathes.
If Trump is successfully removed from office, I predict a breakout of serious unrest from
the people.
Do you have multiple personalities? One moment you are defending true conservatism and the
next you seem to be supporting somebody because they have an R next to their name. Trump is a
serious danger to our country. Far more than ISIS or any Muslim terrorists.
George Washington wrote a letter of farewell to the American People in 1796, in which he
warned against the corruption of self-interested political parties. He called them political
factions, but he is referring to the corruption and treasonous tendencies of the Democrat and
Republican Parties of today, who are much more interested in the advancement of their party
than the well-being of the Country, the protection of the Constitution or the rule of
law.
Both of these now treasonous parties are funded and controlled by much the same global
financial interests and are currently more loyal to their foreign paymasters -- which
includes many foreign despots -- than they are to our country. The corruption of each of the
two major political parties feeds on that of the other. Both parties have grown into
foreign-controlled monsters. Individual Congressmen take orders from the party leadership,
the lapdogs of their party bosses, instead of serving the interests of the nation.
The extreme partisanship and generalized demonization of members of the other party is a
form of brainwashing that keeps Democrats and Republicans voting for their respective
parties, no matter how corrupt the politicians of their own party have become. Listen to
the speakers at political rallies, if they are only demonizing the other side in an
unfocussed and vague way, this is what they are doing. It is a strategy of "divide and
conquer." People should concentrate on specific misdeeds of individuals and not just be
the cheerleaders of their own party. Both parties are parasitical entities feeding on the
rotting carcass of America, which they have created.
Those, who vote for one party or the other above all else, no matter whom the party
nominates or what the party does, lawful or not, are engaging in the same political
factionalism, about which Washington warned. Both parties have to be made to protect the
Constitution and respect the rule of law. That is much more important than which party wins.
At this point, neither party gives much of a damn about the Constitution or the law. The only
goal is to win at any cost, vying for the attention of their globalist
string-pullers.
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to
The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers
and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.
The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before
moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail
Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to
assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.
Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt
gripping the nation , believes that this
falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping
at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed
intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop
any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.
Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute
a "grave American national security threat."
Pretty interesting and revealing video of the interview...
There is indeed probable cause to conclude, meaning indictable offenses, that employees of the Department of Justice and/or the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), sympathetic to the Democrat Party, used the power of their offices and with the assistance of
foreign nationals to influence the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton, first to exonerate her and then obtain information to
prevent the election of Donald Trump or to provide a basis for his impeachment should he win.
From the Congressional investigations involving the Department of Justice and the FBI it looks like that those institutions
protecting themselves at the expense of transparency and accountability to the American people.
In other words, the government employees involved consider the survival of the Deep State more important than the survival of
the Constitution. That is the definition of tyranny.
"... Scared and panicking Evelyn Farkas spilled the beans. By saying "I became very worried..." she's obviously trying to justify her behavior in case a legal bomb is dropped on her. This is a side effect of Nunes' dramatized little trip to the White House intelligence secure facilities: as long as they don't know Nunes and Trump's hands, panic will bring more people to come forward and look for some kind of justification and/or protection. ..."
Obama and Clinton thought they had the election in the bag. They broke surveillance laws thinking that Clinton would be in
the Whitehouse to cover it anyway. Imagine their shock on election day when they realized how many felonies would be exposed when
Trump took over.........cover-up.
Look at her face at 2:06 ... Scared and panicking
Evelyn Farkas spilled the beans. By saying "I became very worried..." she's obviously trying to justify her behavior in case a
legal bomb is dropped on her. This is a side effect of Nunes' dramatized little trip to the White House intelligence secure facilities:
as long as they don't know Nunes and Trump's hands, panic will bring more people to come forward and look for some kind of justification
and/or protection.
Congressman Tells Rod Rosenstein That James Comey BROKE THE LAW then Rosenstein Agrees! 12/13/17
Congressman Louie Gohmert brings up the fact that past FBI Director James Comey broke federal law and FBI employee policy by intentionally
leaking a memo of his conversations with President Donald Trump to a friend to then leak to the press. Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein then agrees with the Congressman.
"... Morell is "priming" the public, cushioning the landing as it were, for the eventual revelation that the Russian collusion narrative has been entirely fabricated. ..."
"... He's not doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but in an attempt to minimize the intelligence community's inevitable, and i might add deserved, loss of credibility over the fiasco. ..."
"... That guy wanted to "kill Russians" and "kill Iranians". He's not a good guy by any stretch of the imagination. ..."
Former CIA Director Michael Morell said in an interview that he thought if there was
evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller
would have found it already and that the evidence would've been leaked by now. RT America's
Anya Parampil has more.
Morell is "priming" the public, cushioning the landing as it were, for the eventual
revelation that the Russian collusion narrative has been entirely fabricated.
He's not doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but in an attempt to minimize the
intelligence community's inevitable, and i might add deserved, loss of credibility over the
fiasco.
What boggles the mind is there are 3 or 4 solid ways to go after Trump that don't involve
Russia, but the media doesn't seem to be interested in those.
That is because a) it doesn't exonerate the DNC over it's shitty performance in 2016, and
b) it doesn't push the new cold war (which in turn boosts arms sales, and gives the elite a
way to terrify and therefore control the populace). They thought it was going to work, but
it's becoming increasingly apparent that the Nothingburger is about to be exposed for what it
is.
American politics is a clown show and it's actually embarrassing to watch, the world is
laughing at America because it's like a badly written soap opera live on TV.
Michael Morell is a psychopath and the kind of guy who'd usually be pushing the Russia
narrative. If he is saying this - well that's a mind blowing death blow to the big lie.
Amazing. For once in his pathetic life he actually makes a correct analysis. Fuck
me.
CIA INFILTRATED TOP LEVEL OFFICIALS OF THE FBI. CIA MUST BE BLOWN TO PIECES LIKE PRESIDENT
KENNEDY SAID. IF THE CIA WOULD STICK TO THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION, THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE
IN THE MESS IT IS IN NOW.
Morell didn't think through the implications of his actions! If that's the case it would
be the first move in his life he hadn't thought through. These people think we are cabbages
and believe anything, whether its Comey schoolboy act or Morell lack of foresight, we are
expected to suck it up, its just plain insulting they don't even try and mask their deceit
anymore
Former Acting Director of the CIA, Michael Morell, gives a surprisingly honest interview in
which he admits that leaking and bashing by the intelligence community against an incoming
president might not have been the best idea.
People need to go to jail for this. Too much power is in the hands of the shadow
government. The democratic party along with the republican establishment need to be exposed
for the snakes that they really are, thank you HA !!
"... House and Senate Committees are also trying to get to the bottom of a report last Monday by Fox News which revealed that recently demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS - the firm behind the Trump-Russia dossier. It was also later uncovered by internet sleuths that Nellie Ohr represented the CIA's "Open Source Works" group at a 2010 working group on organized crime, which she participated in along with her husband Bruce and Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS. ..."
"... Last Tuesday, FBI Deputy Director McCabe unexpectedly cancelled a scheduled testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee -- thought to be related to the Fox report on Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Text messages between Strzok and Page were released the same day . ..."
"... Of course he won't, yet those who still support Trump will continue to perform mental gymnastics to explain why. Trump picked Sessions, just like he picked Cohn, Munchkin, Pence, etc. ..."
"... I've always been very uncomfortable with the nearly unlimited mandate afforded Special Prosecutors. Arguments that Mueller has exceeded his mandate and is now on a fishing expedition show a complete disregard for the law. Mueller is allowed to do that, just as Ken Starr was. That's the problem. Mueller hasn't done anything unlawful and nobody has seriously alleged that he has. The problem is that the law allows him to do whatever he wants. ..."
"... If by "insurance policy" Strzok meant the dossier, which was the basis for a FISA warrant, I'd say they were outside the law. ..."
"... Have you noticed that everyone with these impeccable, beyond reproach, do it by the book reputations are all really nothing more than reptilian scumbags? Comey, Mueller, McCain, Sessions....... ..."
In November. Sessions
pushed back on the need for a special counsel to investigate a salacious anti-Trump dossier
paid for in part by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and whether or not the FBI used the largely
unverified dossier to launch the Russia investigation. Sessions told Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
that it would take "a factual basis that meets the standard of a special counsel," adding "You
can have your idea but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it
meets the standards it requires. I would say, 'looks like' is not enough basis to appoint a
special counsel "
A flood of GOP lawmakers along with President Trump's outside counsel Jay Sekulow have
renewed calls for a separate special counsel investigation of the Department of Justice and the
FBI amid revelations that top FBI officials
conspired to tone down former FBI Director James Comey's statement exonerating Hillary
Clinton - altering or removing key language which effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's
beahvior. The
officials implicated are former FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe,
Peter Strzok, Strzok's supervisor E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and DOJ Deputy General
Counsel Trisha Anderson .
Also under recent scrutiny are a trove of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok to
his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page showing extreme bias against then-candidate Trump, while
both of them were actively engaged in the Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia
investigation. GOP lawmakers claim the FBI launched its investigation into Russian collusion
based on the 34-page dossier created by opposition research firm Fusion GPS - which hired the
CIA wife of a senior DOJ official to assist in digging up damaging information on
5then-candidate Trump .
A particularly disturbing text message between Strzok and Page was leaked to the press last
week referencing an "
insurance policy " in case Trump were to be elected President. Strzok wrote to Page: " I
want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way
he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk ." It's like an insurance policy in
the unlikely event you die before you're 40.... "
House and Senate Committees are also trying to get to the bottom of a report last Monday by
Fox News which revealed that recently demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for
Fusion GPS - the firm behind the Trump-Russia dossier. It was also later uncovered by internet
sleuths that Nellie Ohr represented the CIA's "Open Source Works" group at a 2010 working group
on organized crime, which she participated in along with her husband Bruce and Glenn Simpson,
co-founder of Fusion GPS.
Bruce and Nellie Ohr
Last Tuesday, FBI Deputy Director McCabe unexpectedly cancelled a scheduled testimony in
front of the House Intelligence Committee -- thought to be related to the Fox report on Bruce
and Nellie Ohr. Text messages between Strzok and Page were
released the same day .
So with Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying things may have "more innocent explanations"
here are some specific questions for the AG to answer:
Did Peter Strzok innocently tell his mistress that there was an " insurance policy"
against a Trump win, which likely referenced the Russia investigation which GOP lawmakers
think was based on an unverified dossier?
Was Peter Strzok innocently texting Lisa Page " F Trump " while he was the lead
investigator on the Clinton email case?
Was Peter Strzok's edit of the phrase "Gross negligence" to "extremely careless"
innocent? It very innocently changed the entire legal standing of the case from criminal
conduct to a layman's opinion of carelessness.
18 U.S. Code '
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
Was Peter Strzok innocently calling Trump " a f*cking idiot " and a "
loathsome human" before investigating him?
Did FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's "damage control team" innocently change their
conclusion that Hillary Clinton's server was " possibly " hacked, rather than " reasonably
likely " - language which significantly altered the seriousness of Clinton's mishandling of
classified information?
Were all references to the FBI working with other members of the intelligence community
on Clinton's private server innocently scrubbed from Comey's exoneration statement - making
it look like a much smaller investigation?
Before he was demoted for doing so - did senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr innocently meet
with MI6 spy Christopher Steele who assembled the salacious 'Trump-Russia' dossier, and then
also innocently meet with Glenn Simpson, co-founder of opposition research firm Fusion GPS?
Fusion commissioned Steele to create the dossier, which relied on senior Russian
officials.
Did Fusion GPS innocently hire Bruce Ohr's CIA wife, Nellie Ohr, to gather damaging
information on President Trump? If there weren't such innocent explanations for everything,
one might think Nellie Ohr could have possibly passed information from the DOJ to Fusion GPS
and vice versa.
Did Hillary Clinton and the DNC innocently pay Fusion GPS $1,024,408 through law firm
Perkins Coie, which then paid Steele $168,000?
In addition to the 'Trump-Russia' dossier, did Fusion GPS innocently arrange the Trump
Tower "setup" meeting between Trump Jr. and a Russian Attorney? Or
attempt to link Donald Trump to billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein ? Or try to push
the debunked claim that a secret email server existed between Trump Tower and Moscow's Alfa
bank - which Alfa bank executives are suing Fusion GPS over?
The list goes on and on, but hey: sometimes things that might appear to be bad in the press
have more innocent explanations...
No! The true explanation cuts across the grain of the existing miasma currently being
perpetrated as truth by the senior management at the FBI. One being ignored and covered up by
the mainstream media. We have senior management at the top federal law enforcement agency
that has willfully chosen to elevate their personal political opinion and beliefs above their
sworn duty to uphold constitutional law. And this "explanation" is just the latest attempt to
reinforce a violently shaking house of cards. The question that presents itself is whether we
have the moral backbone as a country to correct our course. The outcome is questionable. And
yet there is room for hope.
"Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake" Appointing a second Special Counsel could be interpreted as an interruption. I'm not
defending Sessions here, he simply might be doing exactly what his boss is asking him to
do.
Of course he won't, yet those who still support Trump will continue to perform mental
gymnastics to explain why. Trump picked Sessions, just like he picked Cohn, Munchkin, Pence, etc.
"The AAZ Empire the Judiciary domain is like central banking and media a goy-free zone. All
lawyers, attorneys, judges, etc. are members of the BAR association, a private, Zion
controlled monopoly, whose internal rules and regulations, that all BAR members are sworn to,
supersedes the constitutions and laws of all nation states."
This quote is not mine,but it reflects exactly what I think. If you do not believe this,do
a search about BAR association.
Look at her picture. You know she's a "chosen",even without knowing her name
Sessions is a gatekeeper. Like the Donald.
The simple fact that Hillary Clinton is not in jail, with the OVERWHELMING evidence we have
against her, that the Weiner lap top has disappeared with all 650 000 incriminating
e-mails, that all the Clinton dead pool is OVERFLOWING, including with the recent death of Dr.
Dean Lorich, who had knowledge about the Clinton Foundation doings in Haiti, Seth Rich's
death, etc. ALL THESE are proofs that we do not have a DOJ, an AG(which are named by the
EXECUTIVE branch) .
This leads to only one conclusion=there is one party, having two wings ,to
create an illusion of "democracy" and that voting matters.
Yes, the full-court press is on to end the Special Prosecutor investigation, and maybe
even the entire law authorizing it. There appear to be no legal grounds for any of this. This
seems to be pure politics and PR manipulation attempts.
I've always been very uncomfortable with the nearly unlimited mandate afforded Special
Prosecutors. Arguments that Mueller has exceeded his mandate and is now on a fishing
expedition show a complete disregard for the law. Mueller is allowed to do that, just as Ken
Starr was. That's the problem. Mueller hasn't done anything unlawful and nobody has seriously
alleged that he has. The problem is that the law allows him to do whatever he wants.
And investigators are allowed to communicate with each other. They shouldn't have affairs
with each other, but they do. Nobody serious, in a position to say or do anything that
counts, alleges that they did anything unlawful, or anything that should be handled any other
way than the way it was handled, which is a job reassignment and possible termination.
Prosecutors are biased against the people they investigate. That's their job. I don't like
that either, but that's the deal.
I'd have a lot more respect for Sessions if he didn't blather on about the Constitution
and State's Rights and Freedom, and then cheerlead enthusiastically for a violent police
state and suspension of the rule of law for profit. But as you say, in this situation, he is
indeed correct.
And the fatuousness of the campaign to discredit Mueller, which assiduously avoids any
legitimate political argument, is a very bad sign. President Trump's attorneys are in way
over their head and they're panicking. Perhaps with good reason. But it would be better for
America if Trump could have retained any competent representation. Clearly all the good
lawyers decided they wanted no part of him as a client.
Have you noticed that everyone with these impeccable, beyond reproach, do it by the book
reputations are all really nothing more than reptilian scumbags? Comey, Mueller, McCain,
Sessions.......
It's SO important to have all the supeanas in place before collecting any documents. I'm
in the middle of a suit and people keep trying to rush... "I'm just gonna go over there and
get a copy...."
"No, not until the lawyer says so!"
Apparently D.C. works by a different set of rules.... and they're blaming the idiots who
gave up the documents, not the ones who are, and continue, to use them illegally. Alternate
universe!
At this point Jeff Sessions is going to go down as literally the biggest fucking douche
bag in history if he doesnt do something - i mean ANYTHING - shuffle his feet / look busy ...
get the group coffee & doughnuts - i'd settle for anything really...
Here's the short list of Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary
Clinton's Crimes.
As a reminder, all the data to date suggests that Hillary broke the following 11 US CODES.
I provided the links for your convenience. HRC needs to STAND DOWN.
CEO aka "President" TRUMP was indeed correct when he said: "FBI Director Comey was the
best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad
deeds!"
18 USC Sec. 2384?TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?PART I - CRIMES?CHAPTER 115 -
TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC02384.html
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of
treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined
under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office
under the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
The Preponderance of Evidence suggests that she broke these Laws, Knowingly, Willfully and
Repeatedly. This pattern indicates a habitual/career Criminal, who belongs in Federal
Prison.
If Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary Clinton would have been
elected. Many if not all of the High Crimes, Crimes & sexual perversion's we see coming
to Light never would have been known off.
The Tyrannical Lawlessness we see before our eyes never would have seen the light of
day.
And, here's the Dark Humor in this. I'm not an Agent / Esq. Attorney from The City of
London. This is common knowledge anyone could Investigate for themselves.
Americans have always been fascinated with the Law. It's the reason some of the highest
rated Tee Vee shows we're all based on Law or the presumption of it. Show such as "Law &
Order" & CSI. Christ Sakes, look at the OJ Trail ratings.
We're now a Nation of Men, not Law. Thus, to my point.
We're now absolutely, completely, open in your Face
Mueller is doing more harm to the fbis already terrible reputation every day this sham is
extended another day. When Mueller is done with this he better watch his backside is all I
can say because many people are pissed at what he has put this country through.
Curious. Whatever transpired during the transition about "contact" with "Russians" would
have been within the authority of the president-elect or his staff.
Why then would emails during transition be subject to review by Congress (or anyone else)
with respect to alleged "collusion" between the campaign and foreign government officials?
And why did not Trump just assert privilege and tell Congress to pound sand?
This is beginning to look like a snipe hunt which is being extended to provide political
eyewash to blind the public to the reality there was no "there" there.
Mueller is dirty. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not the dirt we see on the surface, it
is the dirty hidden below the cesspool of the Washington Mob.
It really is a soft coup by the FBI, CIA, DNC, among others. What a disgrace. These are
the same people who want to be taken seriously. We'll take them seriously once they become
serious. Which is likely no time soon.
All these agencies are wacked right out. What we need is one moar... the Bureau of Pissed
Off Citizens With Pitchforks. The Imperial City is out of control.
Yep...Now the Fake News has all the Trump transition emails and gossip. This entire
operation was a data mining expedition for the DNC and democrats. If you want to know a mans
motives look at who he hires and Mueller has 3/4 partisan left wing hacks working for him.
The fact they think this is ok and no big deal tells you all one needs to know and if it's
proven they have been leaked, then shut this shit show down..This country is a disgrace.
The left and right establishment of DC, the Intelligence agencies, the fake news, and the
Department of Justice have undertaken an overthrow of the constitutionally elected President
of the United States.
This is treason.
This is sedition.
People need to answer for their crimes and should be punished severely.
Justice in the USA is not a thing of the past....
No matter what the previous criminal administrations wish you to believe.
This article never did say what the unlawful conduct was in obtaining the emails. GSA has
no choice in cooperating with Mueller. He has been given broad authority.
I wish there was more objectivity on zerohedge. Mostly it is right extremist hate mongers
who are besotted with one-sided cool aid. They just decide who to hate then lambast them
without looking at all the facts. Nobody would call that smart.
No mention of Bill, Hillary, Awans, Debbie, Seth, Huma, Carlos (perv husband of Huma the
Hummer), Chelsea, and many other things too long to list. Hmmm... maybe the FBI should be
chasing real criminals. But they are merely guardians of the old guard these days.
Investigation was long ago deleted from their mandate.
The sad fact of the matter is that all those involved in this overthrow, fully understand,
their actions and behavior up to and including the spying on, the unmasking, the leaking of
classified information, the slanderous and disinformation shit out by the fake news, etc.,
would eventually be exposed.
Those complicit did not care!
They'd rather destroy the nation than relinquish their unchecked power and ill gotten
wealth.
We are on the verge of the fight of our lives.
US patriots will soon be in the field of battle with the deep state/shadow government/evil
empire.
When the dust settles, no Bush, Clinton, or Obama family member or administration team
should walk free.
This whole thing started out of nothing, or rather from a planted lie, as losers refused
to accept the outcome of the election they thought they have sufficiently gamed. Meanwhile we
have DNC testifying that they don't give a shit about democracy as they can do as they please
as a "private" organization, including sabotaging their own candidates, but yawn to that. We
have a testimony that connects DNC to the murder of Seth Rich, testimony obstructed from
proper investigation by the highest law enforcement agency in the country itself. We have
bureaucrat insurrection, from lowest clerks and judges to highest government officials, aimed
at undermining the duly elected POTUS. This is a revolution in reverse, where ruling class is
trying to overthrow the will of the people. And who is in the forefront of this fascist
takeover and trampling of democracy: exactly the agencies that suppose to protect the country
from that scenario - CIA and FBI. Finally the veil of "democracy has slipped and we can all
see the ugly truth behind it...
"... It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign in July 2016, shortly before the Russiagate investigation was launched. ..."
"... The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. ..."
"... Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier. ..."
"... It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of persons involved in the election campaign of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump. ..."
"... Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the basis for a warrant to spy on Americans. ..."
"... There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress because of the failure of the FBI and the Justice Department to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas. ..."
"... As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been provided with the Trump Dossier ..."
"... As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the narrative frame narrative when questioning witnesses about their role in Russiagate. ..."
"... These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain the surveillance warrants it obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards. ..."
"... Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there has also to be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump administration at the start of the year. ..."
"... On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton's opponent ..."
"... Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive to draw attention away from their own activities. ..."
"... Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what I said nine months ago in March . Congressman Jordan has again recently called for a second Special Counsel to be appointed . When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair. ..."
"... Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during the election as the focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel. ..."
"... There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance of US citizens during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier. ..."
It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump
Dossier, who is now known to have been in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign in
July 2016, shortly before the Russiagate investigation was launched.
Whilst there is some confusion about whether the FBI actually paid Steele for his
information, it is now known that Steele was in contact with the FBI throughout the election
and after, and that the FBI gave credence to his work.
Recently it has also come to light that Steele was also directly in touch with Obama's
Justice Department, a fact which was only disclosed recently. The best
account of this has been provided by Byron York writing for The Washington Examiner
The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general
at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally
Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016, Ohr's office was just
steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump's initial travel ban
executive order and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice
Department.
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts
with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with
Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the
Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.
Word that Ohr met with Steele and Simpson, first reported by Fox News' James Rosen and
Jake Gibson, was news to some current officials in the Justice Department. Shortly after
learning it, they demoted Ohr, taking away his associate deputy attorney general title and
moving him full time to another position running the department's organized crime drug
enforcement task forces.
It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of
information in the Trump Dossier – obtained at least one warrant from the FISA court
which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of
persons involved in the election campaign of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
In response to subpoenas issued at the instigation of the Congressman Devin Nunes the FBI
has recently admitted that the Trump Dossier cannot be verified.
However the FBI and the Justice Department have so far failed to provide in response to
these subpoenas information about the precise role of the Trump Dossier in triggering the
Russiagate investigation.
The FBI's and the Justice Department's failure to provide this information recently provoked
an angry exchange between FBI Director Christopher Wray and Congressman Jim Jordan during a
hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
During that hearing Jordan said to Wray the following
Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and
the Clinton campaign, which we now know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid
Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together a report that
we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been
reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and
presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the basis for a warrant to
spy on Americans.
In response Wray refused to say whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI
obtaining the FISA warrants, even though it was previously disclosed that it did. This is
despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been
provided in response to Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress because of the failure of the FBI and the Justice
Department to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee
Jordan also had this to say
Here's what I think -- I think Peter Strozk (sic) Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he's
the guy who took the application to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened, if
you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats' campaign, taking opposition
research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it
to the FISA court so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong
as it gets
Peter Strzok is the senior FBI official who is now known to have had a leading role in both
the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's misuse of her private server and in the Russiagate
investigation.
Strzok is now also known to have been the person who changed the wording in Comey's
statement clearing Hillary Clinton for her misuse of her private email server to say that
Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless'" as opposed to "grossly negligent".
Strzok – who was the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence – is now
also known to have been the person who signed the document which launched the Russiagate
investigation in July 2016.
Fox News has
reported that Strzok was also the person supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn.
It is not clear whether this covers to the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017
during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with Russian ambassador. However it
is likely that it does.
If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's to the FBI during this
interview which made up the case against him to which he has now pleaded guilty, and given the
indications that Flynn's interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was a
set-up intended to entrap him .
As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was
Strozk who was the official within the FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher
Steele, and who would have been provided with the Trump Dossier.
Recently it has been disclosed that Special Counsel Mueller sacked Strzok from the
Russiagate investigation supposedly after it was discovered that Strzok had been sending
anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he was having
an affair.
These messages were sent by Strzok to his lover during the election, but apparently only
came to light in July this year, when Mueller supposedly sacked Strzok because of them.
It seems that since then Strzok has been working in the FBI's human resources department, an
astonishing demotion for the FBI's former deputy director for counter-intelligence who was
apparently previously considered the FBI's top expert on Russia.
Some people have questioned whether the sending of the messages could possibly be the true
reason why Strzok was sacked. My colleague Alex Christoforou has reported
on some of the bafflement that this extraordinary sacking and demotion has caused.
Business Insider reports the anguished comments of former FBI officials incredulous that
Strzok could have been sacked for such a trivial reason. Here is what Business Insider
reports one ex FBI official Mark Rossini as having said
It would be literally impossible for one human being to have the power to change or
manipulate evidence or intelligence according to their own political preferences. FBI agents,
like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs. If
anything, the overwhelming majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
This is obviously right. Though the ex-FBI officials questioned by Business Insider are
clearly supporters of Strzok and critics of Donald Trump,
the same point has been made from the other side of the political divide by Congressman Jim
Jordan
If you get kicked off the Mueller team for being anti-Trump, there wouldn't be anybody
left on the Mueller team. There has to be more
Adding to the mystery about Strzok's sacking is why the FBI took five months to confirm
it.
Mueller apparently sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation in July and it was
apparently then that Strzok was simultaneously sacked from his previous post of deputy director
for counter-espionage and transferred to human resources. The FBI however only disclosed his
sacking now five months later in response to demands for information from Congressional
investigators.
There is in fact an obvious explanation for Strzok's sacking and the strange circumstances
surrounding it and I am sure that it is the one Congressman Jordan was thinking during his
angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Recently the FBI admitted to Congress that it has failed to verify the Trump Dossier.
I suspect that Congressman Jordan believes that the true reason why Strzok was sacked is
that Strzok's credibility had become so tied to the Trump Dossier that when its credibility
collapsed over the course of the summer when the FBI finally realised that it could not be
verified his credibility collapsed with it. If so then I am sure that Congressman Jordan is
right.
We now know from a variety of sources but first and foremost from the testimony to Congress
of Carter Page that the Trump Dossier provided the frame narrative for the Russiagate
investigation until just a few months ago.
We also know that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report
about supposed Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows
that at the start of the year the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community
– Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
The June 2017 article in the Washington Post (discussed by me here ) also all but confirms
that it was the Trump Dossier that provided the information which the CIA sent to President
Obama in August 2016 alleging that the Russians were interfering in the election.
As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the Trump
Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence
Community, who appears to be very close to some of the FBI investigators involved in the
Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the
narrative frame narrative when questioning witnesses about their role in Russiagate.
These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided
the information which the FBI used to obtain the surveillance warrants it obtained from the
FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards.
Strzok's position as the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence makes it highly
likely that he was amongst those senior FBI and US intelligence officials who gave the Trump
Dossier credence, whilst his known actions during the Hillary Clinton private server
investigation and during the Russiagate investigation make it highly likely that it was he who
was the official within the FBI who sought and obtained the FISA warrants.
Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to
its start in July 2016, there has also to be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind
many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump administration
at the start of the year.
This once again points to the true scandal of the 2016 election.
On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign
the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community carried out surveillance
during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Donald Trump,
Hillary Clinton's opponent .
Given the hugely embarrassing implications of this for the FBI, it is completely
understandable why Strzok, if he was the person who was ultimately responsible for this debacle
– as he almost certainly was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks
– as he likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when the utter
falsity of the Trump Dossier could no longer be denied.
It would also explain why the FBI sought to keep Strzok's sacking secret, so that it was
only disclosed five months after it happened and then only in response to questions from
Congressional investigators, with a cover story about inappropriate anti-Trump messages being
spread about in order to explain it.
This surely is also the reason why in defiance both of evidence and logic the Russiagate
investigation continues to grind on.
Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are
facing, it is completely understandable why they should want to keep the Russiagate
investigation alive to draw attention away from their own activities.
Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the
surveillance which is the wrongdoing the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is
what I said nine
months ago in March . Congressman Jordan has again recently called for
a second Special Counsel to be appointed . When the suggestion of appointing a second
Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the second
Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair.
That always struck me as misconceived not because there may not be things to investigate in
the Uranium One case but because the focus of any new investigation should be what happened
during the 2016 election, not what happened during the Uranium one case.
Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the
US national security bureaucracy during the election as the focus of the proposed investigation
to be conducted by the second Special Counsel.
In truth there should be no second Special Counsel. Since there is no Russiagate collusion
to investigate the Russiagate investigation – ie. the investigation headed by Mueller
– should be wound up.
There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real
scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance of US citizens during the election by the US
national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of
Congress such as Congressman Nunes (recently cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately
by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman Jordan are starting to
demand it is a hopeful sign.
In five month is is clear how wrong Pat Buchanan was. I expected from him a much better analysis with less prejudies. But he is absolutely
right about leaks. Actually now it is clear that one of the requests from Trump team to Russian ambassador was about help Israel in UN, so this not a
Russiagate. There is also suspection that Strzok was the person who had thrown Flynn under the bus and propagated
Steele dossier within FBI. May be acting as Brennan agent inside FBI.
Notable quotes:
"... Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn. ..."
"... Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page 1 ..."
"... Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality. ..."
"... Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to fence them once stolen and repainted. ..."
"... Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out? ..."
"... Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic? ..."
"... Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck. ..."
"... People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for. ..."
"... Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the control of globalists. But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing. ..."
"... Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks." What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually lying creeps? ..."
"... No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of worse barbarians. ..."
"... There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election" black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to influence US politics. ..."
"... If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's) elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics by Israel in particular. ..."
"... If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious "influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country. ..."
For a year, the big question of Russiagate has boiled down to this: Did Donald Trump's
campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC? And until last week, the answer was
"no."
As ex-CIA director Mike Morell said in March, "On the question of the Trump campaign
conspiring with the Russians there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There's no little
campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark."
Well, last week, it appeared there had been a fire in Trump Tower. On June 9, 2016, Donald
Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with Russians -- in anticipation of promised
dirt on Hillary Clinton's campaign. While not a crime, this was a blunder. For Donald Jr. had
long insisted there had been no collusion with the Russians. Caught in flagrante, he went full
Pinocchio for four days.
And as the details of that June 9 meeting spilled out, Trump defenders were left with egg on
their faces, while anti-Trump media were able to keep the spotlight laser-focused on where they
want it -- Russiagate.
This reality underscores a truth of our time. In the 19th century, power meant control of
the means of production; today, power lies in control of the means of communication.
Who controls the media spotlight controls what people talk about and think about. And
mainstream media are determined to keep that spotlight on Trump-Russia, and as far away as
possible from their agenda -- breaking the Trump presidency and bringing him down.
Almost daily, there are leaks from the investigative and security arms of the U.S.
government designed to damage this president.
Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting
between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the
firing of Flynn.
An Oval Office meeting with the Russian foreign minister in which Trump disclosed that
Israeli intelligence had ferreted out evidence that ISIS was developing computer bombs to
explode on airliners was leaked. This alerted ISIS, damaged the president, and imperiled
Israeli intelligence sources and methods.
Some of the leaks from national security and investigative agencies are felonies, not only
violations of the leaker's solemn oath to protect secrets, but of federal law.
Yet the press is happy to collude with these leakers and to pay them in the coin they seek.
First, by publishing the secrets the leakers want revealed. Second, by protecting them from
exposure to arrest and prosecution for the crimes they are committing.
The mutual agendas of the deep-state leakers and the mainstream media mesh perfectly.
Consider the original Russiagate offense.
Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks. And who was the third and indispensable party in this
"Tinker to Evers to Chance" double-play combination?
The media itself. While deploring Russian hacking as an "act of war" against "our
democracy," the media published the fruits of the hacking. It was the media that revealed what
Podesta wrote and how the DNC tilted the tables against Bernie Sanders.
If the media believed Russian hacking was a crime against our democracy, why did they
publish the fruits of that crime?
Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic
political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page
1?
Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge
that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic
disloyalty and criminality.
Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to
fence them once stolen and repainted.
Some journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of
their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what
the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much
hope.
And thus does democracy die in darkness.
Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government
who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs
not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out?
Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members
of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic?
Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck.
People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal.
Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell
the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald
Trump both for who he is and what he stands for.
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly undermining
your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please write this
out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe then it
will sink in.
There is nothing there.
Let the media cry Russia Russia Russia forever. Trump can do other things. People will lose interest in this. This is different from Watergate because there really was a burglary and a coverup. There's nothing remotely like this here.
1. If Russians really did it, they did it on their own. Trump team had nothing to do with
it.
2. If Russians didn't do it, this is just the media wasting its resources and energy on
nothing.
Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be
distracted by Trump does something real. Because Buchanan lived through Watergate, I think he's over-thinking this. It's like
dejavu to him. Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the
control of globalists. But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but
unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing.
Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the
integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or
deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks." What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually
lying creeps?
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period
where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an
unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the
trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of
worse barbarians.
Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and
their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President),
imo.
There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he
covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election"
black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest
credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true
criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to
influence US politics.
Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?
Clearly not, as far as anybody knows based upon information in the public domain. There's
no evidence Russia's government hacked anything anyway. A meeting by campaign representatives
with Russians claiming to have dirt on Trump's rival is not evidence of collusion in
hacking.
Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.
Again, Buchanan seems to be needlessly conceding ground to known liars and deluded
zealots.
If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and
should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding
and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's)
elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics
by Israel in particular.
If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about
foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious
"influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically
including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country.
That would quickly result in the shutting down of mainstream media complaints about
foreign influence.
Yipes -- What is the matter with Buchanan? Is he taking weird prescription drugs for
Alzheimers ?
He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that
the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper
and Mika etc etc etc
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
It already didn't end well and it pains me to say this. What it may become only is worse.
At this stage I don's see any "better" scenarios. The truth has been revealed.
"... ccording to the charge sheet , Flynn first made contact with Kislyak to discuss the Israel vote. We found out this weekend his reason for doing so. "[Special counsel Robert] Mueller's investigators have learned through witnesses and documents that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the Trump transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel," ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... In short, the first known contact between the Trump campaign and Russia after the election occurred in the service of a different foreign power, Israel, and was ultimately fruitless. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... * Aaron Maté is a host/producer for The Real News Network. ..."
"... Published in www.newcoldwar.org (New Cold War: Ukraine and Beyond) ..."
Why are the media paying scant attention to Michael Flynn's admissions about Israel?
The indictment of former national-security adviser Michael Flynn on December 1 has confirmed
that Donald Trump's inner circle colluded with a foreign power before entering the White House
-- just not the foreign power that has been the subject of our national fixation for the past
year. To be sure, the jury is still out on Russia, though there are new grounds for questioning
the case for a plot tying the Kremlin to Trump Tower. But with Flynn's plea, we can now say for
certain that the Trump team did collude -- with Israel.
To recap, Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his conversations
with then–Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the period after Trump's November 2016
victory. As Foreign Policy
previously reported , Flynn reached out to Kislyak as part of "a vigorous diplomatic bid"
to undermine President Obama's decision to allow a December 2016 Security Council resolution
condemning illegal Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Territories. The indictment
fills in some details.
According to the charge sheet ,
Flynn first made contact with Kislyak to discuss the Israel vote. We found out this weekend his
reason for doing so. "[Special counsel Robert] Mueller's investigators have learned through
witnesses and documents that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the Trump
transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel,"
The New York Times
reported after Flynn's court appearance on Friday. "Investigators have learned that Mr.
Flynn and [Trump son-in-law Jared] Kushner took the lead in those efforts" -- efforts which
failed to change a single vote, including Russia's, which backed the measure in defiance of the
Trump-Netanyahu subversion attempt.
In short, the first known contact between the Trump campaign and Russia after the election
occurred in the service of a different foreign power, Israel, and was ultimately fruitless.
The next contact between Flynn and Kislyak was more productive. In late December, Obama
imposed new sanctions on Russia for its alleged meddling in the 2016 election. A day later,
Flynn called the Russian ambassador to request that the Kremlin, according to the plea
document, "only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner." Flynn's overture came
after a Trump transition colleague told him that the incoming administration "did not want
Russia to escalate the situation." By all accounts, Russia complied.
Whatever one thinks about this covert attempt to reduce tensions with a nuclear-armed power,
it demonstrates an effort by the Trump transition, as with the Israel vote, to undermine the
outgoing administration's policy. Trump critics have seized on that
as a violation of the Logan Act, which bars citizens from having unauthorized negotiations with
foreign governments in a dispute with the United States. But the Logan Act has seldom been used
except as a partisantalkingpoint
, not a prosecutable offense. More importantly, there's the question as to whether Flynn's
overture on sanctions prove a quid pro quo [a favor or advantage granted or expected in return
for something].
Notwithstanding the post-election contact with Flynn, not only has Russia failed to gain a
reduction in sanctions but its relations with Washington have deteriorated. In early August,
Trump signed new sanctions on Russia overwhelmingly approved by Congress. The administration
recently presented lawmakers with a list of targets that "reads like a who's who of the Russian
defense and intelligence sectors," The New York Times noted. In September, Trump shut
down the Russian consulate in San Francisco and two annexes in New York City and Washington,
DC. Just last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson denounced Russia's "malicious tactics"
against the West and vowed that sanctions imposed over Russian's role in Ukraine "will remain
in place until Russia reverses the actions that triggered them."
Meanwhile, Trump has enlarged NATO over Russia's objections, carried out the "biggest
military exercise in Eastern Europe since the Cold War" on Russia's border, appointed several
anti-Russia hawks to key posts, and continues to deliberate over whether to supply Ukraine with
a weapons package that Obama himself rejected out of fear it would worsen the country's civil
war.
In the latest flare-up, Russia has ordered international media outlets to register as
foreign agents in retaliation for the Justice Department first doing so to Washington-based
RT America .
It is, of course, possible that all of this is an elaborate ruse to mask the secret, as yet
unproven, conspiracy that many insist will lead to Trump's downfall. The fact that Flynn is now
a cooperating witness has refueled hopes that this day is finally approaching. After all, why
would Flynn lie about his contacts with Russia if he did not have something to hide? And why
would Mueller offer him a plea deal if Flynn wasn't offering him a bigger fish to fry? (One
plausible motive,
as Buzzfeed notes , is that Flynn may have lied to hide his potential Logan Act
violation.)
Only time will tell whether Flynn has something to offer Mueller, or whether Mueller has
gotten from him what he can. In the meantime, more than a year after the election, we still
have exactly zero evidence of any cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian
government -- nor, it must be repeated, any evidence to back up U.S. intelligence officials'
claims that the Russian government meddled in the election. We do have instances of Trump
campaign figures' -- namely, Donald Trump Jr. and low-level adviser George Papadopoulos --
making contact with people that they thought were Russian government intermediaries. But
whatever they were told or believed, there is still no proof that their contacts led to an
actual Kremlin connection.
What we do have is evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Israel to subvert the U.S.
government's official position at the United Nations Security Council. Yet reaction to that
news has been quite a departure from the standards of Russiagate when it comes to foreign
meddling.
The contrast was put on stark display on Sunday, when Jared Kushner appeared with
billionaire Israeli-American media tycoon Haim Saban at the latter's annual forum on
U.S.-Israel relations. Saban took a moment to thank Kushner for his role in the subversion
effort that Flynn admitted to have undertaken on Israel's behalf. "To be honest with you, as
far as I know there's nothing illegal there," Saban told his stage companion. "But I think that
this crowd and myself want to thank you for making that effort, so thank you very much."
For all of the fears of Russian oligarchs' having influence over Trump, the comment from
this American oligarch reveals a great deal about who really influences practically everyone in
Washington, Republican or Democrat. Saban was not a Trump donor. He is, in fact, Bill and
Hillary Clinton's top all-time financial supporter,
to the tune of more than $25 million ; a benefactor whose generosity has helped build not
just the Clinton Library but also the Democratic National Committee's
headquarters.
But there has been no outrage from democracy-defending #Resistance stalwarts over Saban's
comments (and the Israeli subversion effort he endorsed). The same for
news of Kushner's failure to disclose his leadership of a group that funded the illegal
Israeli settlements that he tried to protect at the United Nations. And now we await to see how
those who agonize over foreign influence on Trump will respond to his reported plans to move
the American embassy to Jerusalem -- "a decision that would break with decades of U.S. policy
and could fuel violence in the Middle East," as Haaretz
notes .
It is unlikely that Trump will be challenged on Israel, because his approach is harmonic
with a bipartisan consensus cemented in large part by the financial contributions of
billionaires like Saban and his Republican pro-Israeli government counterpart, Sheldon Adelson.
Hence, there are no editorials or opinion pieces denouncing Israel's ' Plot Against
America ' or '
War on America ', or warnings that ' Odds Are, Israel Owns
Trump ', or explorations of ' What
Israel Did to Control the American Mind '. Likewise, there will be no new groups forming
dubbed the ' Committee to Investigate
Israel ' or the ' Tel Aviv
Project '. In fact it is more than likely that, going forward, the media will give
Israelgate the same treatment as cable's top Russiagate sleuth, MSNBC 's Rachel
Maddow, gave during her exhaustive Flynn coverage so far, which is to not even mention it.
This weekend furnished us with another important contrast. Flynn's indictment was followed
hours later by the passage of the Senate Republican tax bill, which stands to be one of the
largest upward transfers of wealth in U.S. history. If protecting democracy is our goal, we may
want to tune out the Russia-obsessed pundits and look closer to home.
* Aaron Maté is a host/producer for The Real News Network.
Published in www.newcoldwar.org
(New Cold War: Ukraine and Beyond)
"... In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information." ..."
"... It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Johnson's letter also questions an " insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...." ..."
"... One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. (h/t @TheLastRefuge2 ) ..."
"... That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information is being discussed. ..."
"... And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know they weren't hacked, they were leaked. ..."
"... Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's nothing here. ..."
"... Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets. ..."
"... They have had a year to destroy the evidence. Why should the CIA controlled MSM report the truth? ..."
"... Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means "I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer their statements to figure out what they did. ..."
"... And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7. Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS. ..."
FBI Edits To Clinton Exoneration Go Far Beyond What Was Previously Known; Comey, McCabe, Strzok ImplicatedTyler Durden Dec 15, 2017 10:10 AM 0 SHARES
detailed in a
Thursday letter from committee chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray.
James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok
The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement
with senior FBI officials , including Peter Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor
, E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by
Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in what was a coordinated
conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton's conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information,
and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate
Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.
Heather Samuelson and Heather Mills
Also mentioned in the letter are the immunity agreements granted by the FBI in June 2016 to top Obama advisor Cheryl Mills and
aide Heather Samuelson - who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the remaining 30,000 records to
the State Department. Of note, the FBI agreed to destroy evidence on devices owned by Mills and Samuelson which were turned over
in the investigation.
Sen. Johnson's letter reads:
According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy
Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa,
and an employee on the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise dates of the edits and identities
of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey's statement
in at least three respects .
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department after anti-Trump text messages to his mistress were
uncovered by an internal FBI watchdog - was responsible for downgrading the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal
charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless."
"Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary,
gross negligence is " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.
According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to "gross negligence": "What my client
did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option
but to recommend prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing
defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared
that Hillary had broken the law.
In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification
for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on
Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly
negligent in their handling of that information."
Also removed from Comey's statement were all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in investigating Clinton's
private email server.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the Intelligence Community to assess
potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. The original statement read:
[W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what
indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.
The edited version removed the references to the intelligence community:
[W]e have done extensive work [removed] to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection
with the personal e-mail operation.
Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey's statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors,
changing their language from "reasonably likely" to "possible" - an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase
"Gross negligence." To put it another way, "reasonably likely" means the probability of a hack due to Clinton's negligence is above
50 percent, whereas the hack simply being "possible" is any probability above zero.
It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion
of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
The original draft read:
Given the combination of factors, we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's
private email account."
The edited version from Director Comey's July 5 statement read:
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal
e-mail account.
Johnson's letter also questions an "
insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa
Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected
-- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...."
One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on
August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became
the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to
Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a
counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
(h/t @TheLastRefuge2 )
Transcript , James Comey Testimony to House Intel Committee, March 20, 2016
The letter from the Senate Committee concludes; "the edits to Director Comey's public statement, made months prior to the conclusion
of the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI's public evaluation of the implications
of her actions . This effort, seen in the light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the
Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an "insurance policy" against Mr. Trump's election, raise profound questions
about the FBI's role and possible interference in the 2016y presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel
Mueller's investigation of President Trump ."
Johnson then asks the FBI to answer six questions:
Please provide the names of the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who comprised the "mid-year review team" during the
FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server.
Please identify all FBI, DOJ, or other federal employees who edited or reviewed Director Comey's July 5, 2016 statement .
Please identify which individual made the marked changes in the documents produced to the Committee.
Please identify which FBI employee repeatedly changed the language in the final draft statement that described Secretary Clinton's
behavior as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless. " What evidence supported these changes?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to remove the reference to the Intelligence Community . On what
basis was this change made?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to downgrade the FBI's assessment that it was "reasonably likely"
that hostile actors had gained access to Secretary Clinton's private email account to merely that than [sic] intrusion was "possible."
What evidence supported these changes?
Please provide unredacted copies of the drafts of Director Comey's statement, including comment bubbles , and explain the
basis for the redactions produced to date.
We are increasingly faced with the fact that the FBI's top ranks have been filled with political ideologues who helped Hillary
Clinton while pursuing the Russian influence narrative against Trump (perhaps as the "insurance" Strzok spoke of). Meanwhile, "hands
off" recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions and assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein don't seem very excited to explore the
issues with a second Special Counsel. As such, we are now almost entirely reliant on the various Committees of congress to pursue
justice in this matter. Perhaps when their investigations have concluded, President Trump will feel he has the political and legal
ammunition to truly clean house at the nation's swampiest agencies.
All I see in this story is that the FBI edits their work to make sure the terminology is consistent throughout. This is not
a smoking gun of anything, except bureaucratic procedure one would find anywhere any legal documents are prepared.
That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once
the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires
a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information
is being discussed.
Now, if Hillary hadn't been such an arrogant bitch, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If she had just take the locked-down
Android of iOS phone they issued her, instead of having to forward everything to herself so she could use her stupid Blackberry
(which can't be locked down to State Dep't. specs), everything would have been both hunky and dory.
And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know
they weren't hacked, they were leaked.
Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing
will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's
nothing here.
That obongo of all crooks is involved is a sure fact, but I'd like to see how many remaining defenders of the cause are still
motivated to lose everything for this thing...
In other terms, what are the defection rates in the dem party, because now this must be an avalanche.
Please, EVERYONE with a Twitter account send this message Every Day (tell your friends on facebook):
Mr. President, the time to purge the Obama-Clinton holdovers has long passed. Please get rid of them at once. Make your base
happy. Fire 100+ from DOJ - State - FBI. Hire William K. Black as Special Prosecutor
Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for
more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access
to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets.
Of course, they may all be related, since Debbie Wasserman-Shits brought them in and set them up, then intertwined their work
in Congress with their work for the DNC.
Just more theater. Throwing a bone to the few citizens who think for themselves. Giving us false hope the US legal system isn't
corrupt. This will never be prosecuted, because the deep state remains in control. They've had a year to destroy the incriminating
evidence.
Ryan and his buddies in Congress will make strained faces (as if taking a dump) and wring their hands saying they must hire
a "Special" Investigator to cover up this mess.
They tweet that crap all the time. Usually just a repeat with different names, but always blaming a Ruskie. About every 6 months
they hit on a twist in the wording that causes it to go viral.
Before Trump was elected , I thought the only way to get our country back was through a Military Coup, but it appears there
may be some light at the end of the tunnel.
I wonder if that light is coming from the soon to be gaping hole in the FBI's asshole when the extent of this political activism
by the agency eventually seeps into the public conciousness.
you can't clean up a mess of this magnitude. fire everyone in washington---senator, representative, fbi, cia, nsa ,etc and
start over---has NO chance of happenning
the only hope for a non violent solution is that a true leader emerges that every decent person can rally behind and respect,
honor and dignity become the norm. unfortunately, corruption has become a culture and i don't know if it can be eradicated
Just expose the Congress, McCabe, Lindsey, McCabe, Clinton, all Dem judges, Media, Hollywood, local government dems as pedos;
that will half-drain the swamp.
If Trump gets the swamp cleaned without a military coup, he will be one of our greatest Presidents. There will be people who
hate that more than they hate being in jail.
Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means
"I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer
their statements to figure out what they did.
And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty
Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7.
Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS.
I have - it's was NBC Nightly News - they spent time on the damning emails from Strozk. Maybe 2-3 minutes. Normal news segment
time. Surprised the hell out of me.
the "MSM" needs to cover their own asses ...like "an insurance policy" just in case the truth comes out... best to be seen
reporting on the REAL issue at least for a couple minutes..
"... The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump. Hardly anyone in the media, mainstream or fringe, are writing about this fact and trying to rally public support for action. What is one to say when confronted with the fact that the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump that was initially commissioned by the Clinton campaign. And who is the FBI Agent paying for the dossier? Why a fellow now revealed as a Clinton partisan. ..."
"... How much of what we see is the real DJT and how much is a projected public persona? ..."
"... DJT's threat to "drain the swamp" has created fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the swamp folk. They naturally fight back. By definition, all swamp critters must toe the neocon line else they would have been fired by previous incumbents. They are all therefore fair game for DJT. ..."
"... I admire your persistence and agree with the points you make in this and your other posts on the topic of Trump. This is an extremely important subject matter. A President was elected, lawfully, and a bunch of stupid ninnies got their panties in a knot over that and are therefore more or less willing to support a Borgist ("deep state", if you prefer) coup d'état. Said ninnies are immune to the rational arguments you present because they are not intelligent, they are hyper emotional and many of them belong to a cult called "[neo]liberalism" (or the "progressive movement", if you prefer). ..."
"... You mention briefly the Steele affair. I still find it difficult to believe that an ex-UK Intelligence Officer can get mixed up in American politics to this extent and scarcely an eyebrow raised. Surely someone's asking questions somewhere about this? The facts are clear enough, for once. ..."
"... And, off stage, a slow but powerful campaign exposing many of Trumnp's enemies as corrupt, perverted hypocrites. And, from time to time, unexpected presents like Brazile's book. But faster please ..."
"... I agree about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has afflicted the media. I think they are suffering from O.C.T.D.: Obsessive Compulsive Trump Disorder. There are some in the media who are of the opinion that this may not be working with most Americans. ..."
"... The crucial point is not about respect for the man. It is respect for the office. All men are flawed, and high position exposes additional flaws. It is evident, to this outside observer, that Trump won "fair and square" according to the established procedures. The variety of "dirty tricks" used against him, both before the election and after, is astounding. There was a "back room" negotiation on election eve, visible in public as the long delay in final over-the-top results, and Trump's apology to his supporters for the delay, "it was complicated". ..."
"... He was smart enough to get elected, defeating a dozen professional republicans and the Democratic machinery along with the MSM. "In the end you will see that he does not live up to your expectations." I thought he was a boor and a mediocre showman. In that regard he's exceeded mine by surviving this long. ..."
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that the information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... Hillary, Bush, Obama and "the establishment" knew unconsciously not to "rock the boat". Trump was seen as too independent and uneducated in the ways of The Borg to be trusted. He had un-borg-like views like "..what the hell are we doing supporting Al Quida?" "...grab her in the pussy.." "..lets make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.." "lets get along with Russia.." "..the Media is fake and biased.." all very un-PC and un-borg-like positions. Too disruptive of the status quo. Might actually solve some problems and reduce the importance of government. ..."
"... I think the Borg determined he was N.O.K. (Not Our Kind). And he has royally pissed off the Media and he is in a death fight with the Media. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
"... Are you aware that the Office of Inspector General has been investigating politicization of the FBI and DOJ for 11 months now? The investigation was brought about at the recommendation of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe. Among the allegations being looked into is that DOJ/FBI have highly political agents that should have at least recused themselves from certain investigations and that their politics may have influenced the course of the investigations. ..."
"... Given the revelations around Strzok, Rhee and Weissman, on Mueller's team, you'd think we'd be hearing more about OIG case. IMO, we are about to though. ..."
"... I'm also stunned by the stupidity of the Democrats. Any liberal who believes the intelligence agencies is a fool. They've just shown us their true nature by blocking the release of several thousand pages of records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. ..."
"... If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would in 2017 consider Fox News to be the most reliable MSM news outlet, I would have rolled around on the ground laughing hysterically. Yet it is true. I am not quite sure what I should deduce from this but I think it is something along the lines of "one cannot be too cynical about the news media". ..."
"... He certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. However, I believe a great deal of the vituperative outrage directed at him has much (possibly primarily) to do with exactly whom he bested in the general election. Not to pile on, but see David E. Solomon's comments on this thread. ..."
"... One can't underestimate the cult of personality that was so carefully crafted around Hillary Clinton for the past two decades. Their chosen strategy of identity politics only kicked it into hyper-drive over the past eight years. ..."
That sure sounds a lot like the current state of the media. We have witnessed this type of hysteria ourselves in just the last
two days. First there was the Brian Ross debacle, which entailed Ross peddling the lie that Trump ordered Flynn to contact the Russians.
That "fake news" elicited an emotional orgasm from Joy Behar on The View. She was on the verge of writhing on the floor as she prematurely
celebrated what she thought would seal the impeachment of Donald Trump. Whoops. Ross had to retract that story.
... ... ...
Watergate and "Russiagate" do share a common trope. During Watergate the Washington Post was mostly a lone voice covering the
story. Washington Post publisher at the time, Kate Graham, reportedly remarked that she was worried that none of the other papers
were covering the story. And it was an important story. It exposed political corruption and abuse of power and a threat to our democracy.
How is that in common with Russiagate? The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to
destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump. Hardly anyone in the media, mainstream or fringe, are writing about this fact and trying
to rally public support for action. What is one to say when confronted with the fact that the FBI paid money to a former British
spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump that was initially commissioned by the Clinton campaign. And who is the FBI Agent paying for
the dossier? Why a fellow now revealed as a Clinton partisan.
It is a shame you wanted to start the discussion with such a stupid comment. I have made no representation whatsoever about the
intelligence or lack of intelligence of Trump. I have expressed nothing regarding "my expectations" for him or his policies. I
get it. You don't like the man and want to grind a meaningless axe.
How much of what we see is the real DJT and how much is a projected public persona?
There's truth and lies, but then there's just plain old bullshit which has nothing to do with either. He seems to throw a ton
of it around as a diversionary tactic. I understand the technique, but I can't see through the smoke screen to divine what he's
up to or who he really is. So I continue to dispassionately observe.
DJT's threat to "drain the swamp" has created fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the swamp folk. They naturally fight back.
By definition, all swamp critters must toe the neocon line else they would have been fired by previous incumbents. They are all
therefore fair game for DJT.
Maybe a citation could be offered here, but there does not appear to be any support for the assertion made by the author of this
piece that "...the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump...".There were reports that the FBI
'considered' paying Steele to continue his work, ( a not altogether uncommon practice), yet within the more responsibly researched
reports it was also clearly stated that in the end the FBI did not in fact pay Steele anything for any work at all.
PT, I admire your persistence and agree with the points you make in this and your other posts on the topic of Trump. This is an
extremely important subject matter. A President was elected, lawfully, and a bunch of stupid ninnies got their panties in a knot
over that and are therefore more or less willing to support a Borgist ("deep state", if you prefer) coup d'état. Said ninnies
are immune to the rational arguments you present because they are not intelligent, they are hyper emotional and many of them belong
to a cult called "[neo]liberalism" (or the "progressive movement", if you prefer).
When you belong to a cult, you must suspend reason; make it subordinate to the hive mind. You lose all perspective. They believe
all kids of ridiculous notions that fail to withstand the most basic rational scrutiny; like Islam and feminism can be allies,
socialism would work if only it were applied correctly, if a man puts on a dress he has actually become a woman and that such
a person would make a good 11 series in the military, low skill/low IQ immigrants - legal or otherwise - are actually good for
the country......so of course they believe that a coup d'état is appropriate when the target is Trump. In their madness they have
convinced themselves that Trump is uniquely dangerous. He is going to destroy the world via ignoring global warming, tax cuts,
immigration reform, pushing the nuclear button just for fun; all of the above and maybe more. You know this, of course. You did
mention "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
As for the rest of the subject matter, personally, I feel that what with all that has been revealed about the FBI, CIA and
NSA, someone should be bringing the involved members of these agencies up on charges related to treason, sedition or whatever
legal terms are correct. Actually, these people should have their doors kicked down and be brought out in hand cuffs. Death sentences
should be on the table and should be applied when legally possible.
This is no more Watergate than a man in a dress is a woman.
The depths to which the govt, populace and values of this country have degenerated have never been more on display than in
this witch hunt. We are in very bad shape. The media is thoroughly scurrilous. Officials in bureaucracies are treasonous and have
no respect for the rule of law. Half of the citizens are insane and support the media and the traitors.
If someone doesn't at least just pull the plug on this "investigation", it's going to ruin what's left of this country. It
may be too late. A lot of ninnies are going to wake up to a very harsh reality.
From day one the Republicans were trying to impeach Bill Clinton by investigating every dark corner of the Clintons' past and
present until they could find something that would stick. Same thing with Trump except this time it goes far beyond the opposition
party to include elements of the government, most of the media and even leading members of his own party. Elections be damned,
we have an empire to maintain and he is seen by the establishment as too impulsive, unstable and so far uncontrollable to be allowed
to stay in power. While no threat to the sacred cows of Wall Street and Israel or even to drain the swamp they are terrified of
his unpredictability, hence the full court press unprecedented in American history to remove him from office. My very low opinion
of Trump doesn't blind me to the dangers inherent in this effort. \
PT - Isn't the point you've just made central? The issues here are far more important than the personalities?
I like what I've seen of our PM, Mrs May. Nice person, to my outsider's way of thinking. Doesn't alter the fact that I consider
her policies and philosophy to be hopeless. And since we're never going to meet her in the pub that's what counts. Would it not
be possible to separate things out in the same way with Trump? Set on one side the partisan arguments about his personality -
politics is not a TV show - and consider him on the basis of what he may or may not do or be able to do?
You mention briefly the Steele affair. I still find it difficult to believe that an ex-UK Intelligence Officer can get
mixed up in American politics to this extent and scarcely an eyebrow raised. Surely someone's asking questions somewhere about
this? The facts are clear enough, for once.
Actually, I think he shares many of Bismark's qualities: "a political genius of a very unusual kind [whose success] rested on
several sets of conflicting characteristics among which brutal, disarming honesty mingled with the wiles and deceits of a confidence
man. He played his parts with perfect self-confidence, yet mixed them with rage, anxiety, illness, hypochrondria, and irrationality.
... He used democracy when it suited him, negotiated with revolutionaries and the dangerous Ferdinand Lassalle, the socialist
who might have contested his authority. He utterly dominated his cabinet ministers with a sovereign contempt and blackened their
reputations as soon as he no longer needed them. He outwitted the parliamentary parties, even the strongest of them, and betrayed
all those ... who had put him into power. By 1870 even his closest friends ... realized that they had helped put a demonic figure
into power.[6]"-wiki
I think, I hope, I believe, I persuade myself that all is unfolding as it should. Mueller turns up nothing but further examples
of officials pimping themselves out to foreign governments; meanwhile revelations of bias on his team; meanwhile chewing away
at the Fusion GPS thing (one of the key pillars); meanwhile investigation of the FBI. And, off stage, a slow but powerful
campaign exposing many of Trumnp's enemies as corrupt, perverted hypocrites. And, from time to time, unexpected presents like
Brazile's book. But faster please
I agree about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has afflicted the media. I think they are suffering from O.C.T.D.: Obsessive
Compulsive Trump Disorder. There are some in the media who are of the opinion that this may not be working with most Americans.
I saw two pieces this morning from BBC and The New York Times:
Perhaps this is the start of a change or a recognition that the MSM's habitual crying wolf behavior is not resonating with
Main Street. I can only hope, but I stopped watching the national news long ago.
The crucial point is not about respect for the man. It is respect for the office. All men are flawed, and high position exposes
additional flaws. It is evident, to this outside observer, that Trump won "fair and square" according to the established procedures.
The variety of "dirty tricks" used against him, both before the election and after, is astounding. There was a "back room" negotiation
on election eve, visible in public as the long delay in final over-the-top results, and Trump's apology to his supporters for
the delay, "it was complicated".
That truly is water under the bridge, and at least must be so, if you wish to preserve
your republic. You all have the right to withhold consent and trash what you and your fathers and grandfathers have achieved.
Most will not like the outcome. But I sincerely hope that you, each and collectively, instead will choose the positive aspects
of this model:
"... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these
are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed."
The ABC story had to be "clarified" given they originally reported Flynn had contacted the Russians DURING the election when in
fact it was AFTER the election. The story had consequences on the stock market:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4129355-cost-fake-news-s-and-p-500
This all happened on the eve of the passage of Trump's tax cuts and it seemed timed to hurt the stock market. It may even possibly
have torpedoed the tax cuts by putting into question Trump's legal standing as president.
I detest Trump as a person but still acknowledge that he is our current President. I will continue to fight against the implementation
of his policies and work hard to to try to insure he does not win a second term. Other than that in 3 more years the American
people will have an opportunity to judge his performance and make a decision on his worthiness to continue as President. That
is as it should be.
Trump has taken some hard shots, some deserved and some not. That is the nature of our current political system. When Trump
traveled the nation proclaiming Obama was not American born and thus an illegitimate President is also an example of "all is fair
in War and politics".
He was smart enough to get elected, defeating a dozen professional republicans and the Democratic machinery along with
the MSM. "In the end you will see that he does not live up to your expectations." I thought he was a boor and a mediocre showman.
In that regard he's exceeded mine by surviving this long.
You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over
relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that the information
in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.
is this doom-and-gloom or hope-assaulting-experience? Am guessing that the only thing he has shares with Old Otto is a preference
for the classic method of donning trousers.
OOPS! there's this (was reminded of it by the hyperventilatory "breaking news" about Blackwater/Erik Prince):
Bismarck held von Holstein in high esteem, and when the latter went to him with his plan for establishing a vast organization
of almost universal spying, the Chancellor of the new German Empire immediately grasped the advantages he could obtain from
it. ....
Von Holstein ... had one great ambition; that of knowing everything about everybody and of ruling everybody through fear
of the disclosures he could make were he at any time tempted to do so. ....
The German Foreign Office knew everything and made use of everything .... In the Prussian Intelligence Department as Holstein
organized it there was hardly a person of note or consequence in Europe about whom everything was not known, including, of
course, his weaknesses and cupboard skeletons. And this knowledge was used when necessary without any compunction or remorse.
....
His first care, whenever an individual capable at a given moment of playing a part, no matter how humble, in the great drama
attracted his attention, was to ferret out all that could be learned about him or her. With few exceptions he contrived to
lay his finger on a hidden secret. Once this preliminary step had been performed to his satisfaction, the rest was easy. The
unfortunate victim was given to understand that he would be shamed publicly at any time, unless . . . unless . . .
As this has been the SOP of Karl Rove (presumably), of Jedgar, and before that [__fill in the blanks___], the only thing unprecedented
about the Prince/Blackwater story is the disregard for omerta.
DISCLAIMER: The Princess Radziwill who published the passage on von Holstein was an opportunistic swashbucklereuse type and
[guessing] would have been so even in less horrifically interesting times.
My humble opinion on what is going on. "The Borg" are individuals whose self-interest is tied to perpetuating "business as usual"
in Washington DC. FBI agents, CIA, NSA need domestic and foreign conflict to aggrandize and justify their positions. They do not
want our national problems solved...god forbid, budgets, salaries, bonuses, future contracting and consulting jobs might be reduced
or eliminated.
Hillary, Bush, Obama and "the establishment" knew unconsciously not to "rock the boat". Trump was seen as too independent
and uneducated in the ways of The Borg to be trusted. He had un-borg-like views like "..what the hell are we doing supporting
Al Quida?" "...grab her in the pussy.." "..lets make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.." "lets get along with Russia.." "..the
Media is fake and biased.." all very un-PC and un-borg-like positions. Too disruptive of the status quo. Might actually solve
some problems and reduce the importance of government.
I think the Borg determined he was N.O.K. (Not Our Kind). And he has royally pissed off the Media and he is in a death
fight with the Media.
I find the whole idea that "Deutsche Bank has branches in Russia and lends money to Russian borrowers, therefore Russians control
Deutsche Bank" idea to be comical.
I have clients who also regularly borrow money from Deutsche Bank. Are they now Russians? Are they controlled now by Russians?
Do Russians control them? What role does DB play in all this web of control?
If I have my mortgage at the same bank as a slum lord/toxic waste generator/adult bookstore owner/CIA operative, am I now his
puppet?
Asking for a friend.
Does nobody understand how banking law works? (in Germany and the US, banks are forbidden to lend to any client or client group
in an amount that would give the borrower de facto control over the operations of the bank). Of course the smarter conspiracy
theorists understand this. Any stick to beat a dog.
This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger
Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier
in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.
What I fail to understand is why Democrats are
sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe
that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.
Are you aware that the Office of Inspector General has been investigating politicization of the FBI and DOJ for 11 months
now? The investigation was brought about at the recommendation of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe.
Among the allegations being looked into is that DOJ/FBI have highly political agents that should have at least recused themselves
from certain investigations and that their politics may have influenced the course of the investigations.
Given the revelations around Strzok, Rhee and Weissman, on Mueller's team, you'd think we'd be hearing more about OIG case.
IMO, we are about to though.
I'm also stunned by the stupidity of the Democrats. Any liberal who believes the intelligence agencies is a fool. They've
just shown us their true nature by blocking the release of several thousand pages of records relating to the assassination of
President Kennedy. If they can't allow the truth to come out after 54 years, they surely can't be trusted to be truthful
about today's information.
Fox News, which has been fairly reliable of late, reported last night that the FBI OIG report will be finalized and made public
sometime in the next 4-5 weeks.
If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would in 2017 consider Fox News to be the most reliable MSM news outlet, I would
have rolled around on the ground laughing hysterically. Yet it is true. I am not quite sure what I should deduce from this but
I think it is something along the lines of "one cannot be too cynical about the news media".
He certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. However, I believe a great deal of the vituperative outrage directed at him
has much (possibly primarily) to do with exactly whom he bested in the general election. Not to pile on, but see David E. Solomon's
comments on this thread.
One can't underestimate the cult of personality that was so carefully crafted around Hillary Clinton for the past two decades.
Their chosen strategy of identity politics only kicked it into hyper-drive over the past eight years.
Still, this phenomenon existed long before Trump, The Politician, and even before Obama and his own cult. Many of these
people were able to put their expectations on hold for eight long years. Obama was a result they could at least live with temporarily
- " Just eight more years, and then they owe her. "
They had their very structures of reality built around a certain outcome, which didn't come to pass. So, the disappointment
was all the more bitter when they realized that their waiting was in vain. That's a tidal wave of cognitive dissonance unleashed
by that unimaginable (for some) occurrence of her defeat. He didn't put paid to Martin O'Malley or even Bernie Sanders. He vanquished
The Queen. That sort of thing never goes down lightly.
" As I've said before, I think Trump only ran for President for 1) ego, and 2) he knows he will have access to billions
of dollars of business deals once he leaves office, with the cachet of having been President.
You might as well assert that lions only hang out around watering holes because 1) there's water there, and 2) gazelles and
zebras have to drink water. Can you point me to one President from living memory who did not 1) run for the Office at least partially
out of ego, and 2) take advantage in his subsequent "private life" of these exact perks of having held the Office? I ask seriously,
because it seems you are pining for a nobility in presidential politics which to my recollection hasn't existed for at least three
generations. Cincinnatus, they ain't. Maybe Ike, but anyone else is a real stretch.
"... But many defense lawyers have chafed at what they see as a scorched-earth approach, forged in Brooklyn while facing down Mafia members and refined on the government's unit of Enron superprosecutors, which left a mixed legacy of high-profile successes, overturned convictions and one unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court. ..."
"... Then came the shock-and-awe raid of Mr. Manafort's home - a Weissmann special, both admirers and critics recognized - the Zorro "Z" to announce his presence in the case. ..."
top lieutenant
to Robert S. Mueller III on the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible
links to the Trump campaign. Significantly, Mr. Weissmann is an expert in converting defendants into collaborators - with either
tactical brilliance or overzealousness, depending on one's perspective.
If Mr. Mueller is the stern-eyed public face of the investigation, Mr. Weissmann, 59, is its pounding heart, a bookish, legal pit
bull with two Ivy League degrees, a weakness for gin martinis and classical music and a list of past enemies that includes
professional killers and white-collar criminals.
... ... ...
But many defense lawyers have chafed at what they see as a scorched-earth approach, forged in Brooklyn while facing down Mafia
members and refined on the government's unit of Enron superprosecutors, which left a mixed legacy of high-profile successes,
overturned convictions and one unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court.
...Then came the shock-and-awe raid of Mr. Manafort's home - a Weissmann special, both admirers and critics recognized -
the Zorro "Z" to announce his presence in the case.
"There's a name," the conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh warned listeners last week, recapping the "intimidating technique"
afoot. "Weissmann."
"... The poll found that 54 percent of the voters agreed that "as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey ," Mr. Mueller has a conflict of interest in the proceedings. Of course there is a partisan divide here: 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agreed. Among those who voted for President Trump in 2016, it was 73 percent; among Hillary Clinton voters, 34 percent. ..."
"... "Where in the hell is our attorney general? We need Attorney General Sessions to step up, do his job, seize control of the nightmare that is this investigation and let's get some unbiased people involved in looking at the facts and it's time for Bob Mueller to put up or shut up. If he's got evidence of collusion let's see it and if he doesn't let's move on and get to the issues can improve quality of life for the American people," Mr. Gaetz observed. ..."
"... 63 percent of voters overall believe that Justice personnel involved in the both the Clinton email and Russian investigations are "resisting providing Congress with information"; 74 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents and 49 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
"... 54 percent overall say "independent counsel Robert Mueller has conflicts of interest as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey " in the investigation; 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
"... 36 percent overall say the special counsel has given President Trump 's aides "harsher treatment" during the investigations than Hillary Clinton 's aides; 56 percent of Republicans, 36 percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
Despite the intricacies of the Russian collusion investigation, voters have some clear
opinions about the situation, according to a wide-ranging Harvard Center for American Political
Studies-Harris survey -- which weighs in at 204 pages. It is a long poll, and a telling one: A
majority of American voters say special counsel Robert Mueller has a "conflict of
interest" in the investigation.
The poll found that 54 percent of the voters agreed that "as the former head of the
FBI and a friend
of James
Comey ," Mr. Mueller has a conflict of
interest in the proceedings. Of course there is a partisan divide here: 70 percent of
Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agreed. Among those who
voted for President Trump in 2016, it was 73 percent;
among Hillary
Clinton voters, 34 percent.
Has the investigation itself revealed any evidence of collusion? Thirty eight percent of the
voters overall said that no evidence of such activities had been found, 35 percent said there
was evidence, while 27 percent did not know the answer. Three fourths of the respondents also
believe that "the special counsel is trying to make a case for obstruction of justice against
the president," the poll found. More numbers in the Poll du Jour at column's end.
PAGING MR. SESSIONS
Just a comment from Rep. Matt Gaetz -- Florida Republican and a member of the House
Judiciary Committee -- made during a discussion with Fox News Radio host Brian Kilmeade . The
pair were discussing the aforementioned investigation into potential "Russia collusion" and the
Trump campaign.
"Where in the hell is our attorney general? We need Attorney General Sessions to step up, do
his job, seize control of the nightmare that is this investigation and let's get some unbiased
people involved in looking at the facts and it's time for Bob Mueller to put up or shut up. If
he's got evidence of collusion let's see it and if he doesn't let's move on and get to the
issues can improve quality of life for the American people," Mr. Gaetz observed.
... ... ...
POLL DU JOUR
76 percent of U.S. voters think the "special counsel" in the Russia investigation is trying
to find collusion between President Trump and Russian officials; 69
percent of Republicans, 76 percent of independents and 83 percent of Democrats agree.
63 percent of voters overall believe that Justice personnel involved in the both the Clinton
email and Russian investigations are "resisting providing Congress with information"; 74
percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents and 49 percent of Democrats agree.
54 percent overall say "independent counsel
Robert Mueller has conflicts of
interest as the former head of the
FBI and a friend
of James
Comey " in the investigation; 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40
percent of Democrats agree.
36 percent overall say the special counsel has given President
Trump 's aides "harsher treatment"
during the investigations than Hillary Clinton 's aides; 56
percent of Republicans, 36 percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats agree.
25 percent say the special counsel does not think a charge of obstruction of justice in the
investigation is possible; 31 percent of Republicans, 24 percent of independents and 19 percent
of Democrats agree.
Source: A Harvard CAPS-Harris survey of 1,995 registered U.S. voters conducted between Dec.
8-11.
Fusion GPs is an interesting part of the whole puzzle.
Notable quotes:
"... On Wednesday morning, Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, responded to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' unclear position on appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's ties to Fusion GPS and Russia and the Uranium One deal orchestrated by the Clinton State Department during the Obama administration. ..."
"... "It needs to be about everything, including Mr. Comey's handling of the Clinton investigation in 2016," Jordan said. "The inspector general is looking into that right now. We're going to look into it as a congressional committee, but it needs to be the full gambit because frankly it's all tied together, and we think in many ways Mr. Rosenstein and many ways Mr. Mueller is compromised; they're not going to look at some of these issues." ..."
On Wednesday morning, Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, responded to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions' unclear position on appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's
ties to Fusion GPS and Russia and the Uranium One deal orchestrated by the Clinton State
Department during the Obama administration.
Jordan, appearing on "Fox & Friends," said the appointment of a special prosecutor to
investigate the full breadth of Clinton's potentially illegal activities "needs to happen."
"It needs to be about everything, including Mr. Comey's handling of the Clinton
investigation in 2016," Jordan said. "The inspector general is looking into that right now.
We're going to look into it as a congressional committee, but it needs to be the full gambit
because frankly it's all tied together, and we think in many ways Mr. Rosenstein and many ways
Mr. Mueller is compromised; they're not going to look at some of these issues."
"But the biggest part, I do believe, is the dossier," Jordan stressed. "The fact, as I said
yesterday, the fact that a major political party can finance this dossier at the same time it
looks like Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier, was being paid by the FBI."
"So are they complicit in putting together this dossier, which was National Enquirer
baloney, turning it into an intelligence document, getting a warrant, and spying on Americans?
If that happened in this great country, that is just so wrong. That's why it warrants a special
examination of this whole issue."
Asked by Ainsley Earhardt why the Department of Justice hasn't asked for a special counsel
yet, Jordan said he thinks it's because "some of the career people at the Justice Department
just don't want to go there." Jordan also said that Attorney General Sessions, who is "a good
man," may feel compromised by his recusal from some aspects of the Russia investigation and
therefore unwilling to push hard against those who don't want to go after Clinton.
On Tuesday, the attorney general testified before the House Judiciary Committee. When asked
by Rep. Jordan if he would appoint a special counsel to investigate Clinton, Sessions
demurred.
"... James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency, when Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help. ..."
"... Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. ..."
"... We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. ..."
"... Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities. ..."
"... Deeply disturbing but not surprising. Rosenstein struck me immediately as another one just like Andrew McCabe, who supposedly was investigating Hilary's infamous server--he's married to a Virginia Democrat candidate ..."
There is a longtime and incestuous relationship between the fixers who have been tasked with taking down President Trump, under
the fake narrative of enforcing the law. James Comey worked in the DOJ directly under Mueller until 2005. Rod Rosenstein and Mueller
go even further back.
James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency,
when Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help.
The two men, as it came to light years later, conspired to disobey potential White House orders to leave Ashcroft alone when he was
incapacitated in March of 2004. These two men, when together, will not obey orders if they think they know better. Being filled with
hubris and almost two decades of doing just about anything they want, they always think they know better.
Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang,
having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as
the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick
as thieves.
We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate
Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House
officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including
covering for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for
the Clintons, no indictments were filed.
Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel
under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the
Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the
Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair.
Here is Robert Mueller, sitting in the middle of his two wunderkinds, making sure the path before them is smooth and obstacle
free, and practically shepherding their careers along the way. Is it any wonder that once Jeff Sessions shamelessly recused himself
from the Russia Collusion Conspiracy investigation and turned it over to his deputy Rod Rosenstein, that Rosenstein would reach out
to his old mentor for help? Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes
for President Donald J. Trump?
Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing
Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities.
Lisa Barsoomian works for R. Craig Lawrence, an attorney who has represented Robert Mueller three times, James Comey five times,
Barack Obama forty-five times, Kathleen Sebellius fifty-six times, Bill Clinton forty times, and Hillary Clinton seventeen times
between 1991 and 2017.
Barsoomian participated in some of this work personally and has herself represented the FBI at least five separate times. It would
be great to research the specifics of the cases she worked in, many of the documents from the Court Docket relating to these cases
have been removed from the D.C. District and Appeals Court, including her representation for Clinton in 1998's case Hamburg. V. Clinton.
Her loyalties are clearly with the entities that make up the Deep State, as are her husbands.
They are a DC Globalist Power Couple, and they mean to destroy Donald Trump under the bidding of their Globalist Masters. Rod
Rosenstein should not have any position in President Trump's administration, let alone one with so much power to harm the Office
of the Presidency.
Mueller is also a Deep State lackey, even acting as delivery boy for Hillary's State Department, hand transporting ten grams of
highly enriched uranium under the auspices of counter-terror. It must only be coincidence that this happened at the same time as
Hillary and her henchman John Podesta were nurturing the Uranium One deal that would see Russia take control over 20% of America's
proven uranium reserves. Shortly after the Russia uranium deal closed, the Clinton Foundation was showered with many millions of
dollars from Russian donors.
Comey, Rosenstein, and their patron Mueller are truly the Three Amigos of the Deep State. Joined long ago in mutual regard, owing
allegiance only to each other and the enshrined bureaucracy that created them. As their actions show, they desire to thwart the will
of the people and depose the duly elected President of the United States of America by using all the powers at their disposal.
"... "Many agents -- I was one," recalled Sullivan, "worked for days culling FBI files for any fact that could be of use to Dewey."
After Dewey secured the nomination, Hoover fed him backgrounders on crime issues and information about Truman's connections to Kansas
City boss Tom Pendergast. The FBI also pressured HUAC chairman J. Parnell Thomas to jump-start its hearings after a grand jury brought
no indictments from testimony by Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers. As Drew Pearson wrote, "Those watching [Assistant Director]
Lou Nichols note that he goes in and out of the office of [Thomas] like an animated shuttlecock." ..."
"... In 1960, it was John F. Kennedy's turn. Concerned about JFK's possible plans, Hoover let Kennedy's aides know that the bureau
had recordings of JFK's wartime trysts with Inga Arvad, a Danish woman suspected of having Nazi ties. Hoover was told he would be retained.
..."
"... Lyndon Johnson enjoyed Hoover's gossip (he once famously said that it was "better to have him inside the tent pissing out,
than outside the tent pissing in"), but the two were on opposing sides in the 1968 race. ..."
"... In 1972, George McGovern became the last candidate to challenge Hoover's supremacy when he announced that if elected he would
replace the clearly aging director. Sullivan recalled that agents were again ordered again to collect malicious gossip for leaking to
the press. Ironically, many of Nixon's Watergate-era excesses, such as the Huston Plan, were too much even for Hoover. He died anyway
that May, six weeks before the break-in. Since his death and until this year, the FBI has mostly stayed on the outside of presidential
elections, as the work of disruption and dirty tricks has been usurped by party operatives who can operate with less restraint than
even Hoover could. ..."
This Is Not the First Time the FBI Has Interfered With a Presidential Election | The NationThis Is Not the First Time the FBI Has Interfered With a Presidential Election Throughout his career,
J. Edgar Hoover used the bureau to meddle in presidential politics and secure his own power. By
Jeff Kisseloff October 31, 2016
Even the FBI's history of insinuating itself into presidential campaigns, this latest October surprise shouldn't have been any
surprise at all.
As early as 1919, Woodrow Wilson's attorney general, the progressive A. Mitchell Palmer, deployed bureau agents in an eponymous
operation to round up and deport alleged radical immigrants. The
Palmer Raids were ostensibly a response to a series of bombings,
but it became apparent that Palmer had had something more in mind when he threw his hat into the ring for the 1920 Democratic presidential
nomination and ran on a proto-Trumpian agenda of "undiluted Americanism." Palmer didn't get past the first ballot, however, and ultimately
the raids' most lasting impact was Palmer's decision to have his young assistant administer the arrests. The official, whose own
youthful ambition earned him the nickname "Speed," was 24-year-old J. Edgar Hoover.
Following the Teapot Dome scandal, the seemingly incorruptible Hoover was appointed to head the bureau. If money didn't tempt
Hoover, power did. While he managed to survive the Coolidge and Hoover administrations, Roosevelt nearly brought Hoover's career
to a premature halt. After his election, FDR announced that Montana Senator Thomas J. Walsh, a fierce opponent of the Palmer raids,
would be his attorney general. Walsh told friends that Hoover would be replaced. But that month, Walsh married a Cuban woman in Havana.
After flying back to Florida, the couple boarded a train to Washington. While passing through North Carolina, Walsh's wife found
him on the floor, dead, the apparent victim of too much honeymooning.
Homer Cummings, who replaced Walsh, retained Hoover. The director quickly realized the way to keep his job was to make himself
indispensable to FDR. Wiretapping was a relatively new investigative tool, and as it turned out Roosevelt was eager to use it against
his political opponents on the left and right. Up for reelection in 1936, he had Hoover eavesdrop on the leftist members of the Newspaper
Guild and other suspected members of the Communist Party, despite the party's attempt to establish a "popular front."
Then, as FDR began to gear up for a third term, Hoover went after Father Charles E. Coughlin, the ultraconservative radio priest
who was a major thorn in Roosevelt's side. In January 1940, 17 members of Coughlin's pro-Hitler Christian Front were arrested by
the FBI, charged with plotting to kill several congressmen. Whether the charges were accurate or not, the arrests finished Coughlin
as an influential political figure.
That same year, the bureau sought to quash the opposition of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade veterans with raids on its offices. But
it was in 1948 that Hoover unleashed the FBI for the first time to further his own career. Like everyone who was not a member of
the Truman family, Hoover assumed that Thomas Dewey would be the next president. Hoover's former assistant William Sullivan recalled
that Hoover believed if he used the bureau's resources on behalf of the Dewey campaign, he would be named attorney General as a stepping
stone to the Supreme Court and eventually to becoming Chief Justice.
"Many agents -- I was one," recalled Sullivan, "worked for days culling FBI files for any fact that could be of use to Dewey."
After Dewey secured the nomination, Hoover fed him backgrounders on crime issues and information about Truman's connections to Kansas
City boss Tom Pendergast. The FBI also pressured HUAC chairman J. Parnell Thomas to jump-start its hearings after a grand jury brought
no indictments from testimony by Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers. As Drew Pearson wrote, "Those watching [Assistant Director]
Lou Nichols note that he goes in and out of the office of [Thomas] like an animated shuttlecock."
At the same time, the bureau was intensely involved in disrupting Henry Wallace's third-party campaign. Wallace had been a target
of the FBI when he was still vice president, but in 1948, the bureau stepped up its activities by surveilling and intimidating Wallace
staffers and supporters and feeding negative information about Wallace to the press and the Truman campaign, which cooperated with
the bureau's efforts. Truman's victory marked an end to Hoover's ambitions. The 1952 election and the subsequent races found the
director again in survival mode by making himself useful to his favored candidates.
While most people remember the 1952 campaign for Richard Nixon's "Checkers" speech, the FBI's efforts to slander Adlai Stevenson
(perhaps for personal, as well as political reasons) as a closeted homosexual gets less attention. According to Hoover's biographer,
Curt Gentry, the director was the source of rumors that Stevenson had once been arrested on morals charges. The same rumors were
spread in 1956, but only Walter Winchell took the bait, notoriously declaring that a vote for Stevenson was a vote for Christine
Jorgensen.
In 1960, it was John F. Kennedy's turn. Concerned about JFK's possible plans, Hoover let Kennedy's aides know that the bureau
had recordings of JFK's wartime trysts with Inga Arvad, a Danish woman suspected of having Nazi ties. Hoover was told he would be
retained.
Lyndon Johnson enjoyed Hoover's gossip (he once famously said that it was "better to have him inside the tent pissing out,
than outside the tent pissing in"), but the two were on opposing sides in the 1968 race. As a last-ditch effort to help the
troubled Hubert Humphrey campaign, Johnson announced the resumption of peace talks with North Vietnam. He soon learned, however,
that South Vietnam's president Nguyen Van Thieu was sabotaging the effort, convinced he could get a better deal if Nixon won.
Madame Anna Chennault, a GOP leader and a close friend of South Vietnam's ambassador Bui Diem, was the person whispering in Thieu's
ear. Gentry writes that when information turned up that she was communicating to Nixon through Spiro Agnew, Johnson thought he had
clinched the election for Humphrey, but Agnew's phone records just happened to turn up missing. The investigation was closed and
Nixon went on to a narrow victory.
In 1972, George McGovern became the last candidate to challenge Hoover's supremacy when he announced that if elected he would
replace the clearly aging director. Sullivan recalled that agents were again ordered again to collect malicious gossip for leaking
to the press. Ironically, many of Nixon's Watergate-era excesses, such as the Huston Plan, were too much even for Hoover. He died
anyway that May, six weeks before the break-in. Since his death and until this year, the FBI has mostly stayed on the outside of
presidential elections, as the work of disruption and dirty tricks has been usurped by party operatives who can operate with less
restraint than even Hoover could.
In 1948, Henry Wallace grasped the larger issues stemming from the FBI's actions, declaring, "We Americans have far more to fear
from those actions which are intended to suppress political freedom than from the teaching of ideas with which we are in disagreement."
If Hoover were alive today he'd be 121 years old and undoubtedly still running the FBI. Considering Comey's actions, perhaps a
séance would be in order to see if he still is.
"... A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community. ..."
A previous version of
Monday's story by Maggie Haberman, titled "Trump's Deflections and Denials on Russia
Frustrate Even His Allies," made reference to the "17 intelligence agencies" that have
supposedly all concurred in the assessment of Russian hacking in the 2016 presidential
race.
Despite the mainstream media and the political left making
constant reference for months to the "17 intelligence agencies" agreeing on Russia's
actions during the campaign, this has repeatedly been debunked. The single released report on the matter
from the American intelligence community was produced by only three intelligence agencies
– the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and
the National Security Agency (NSA).
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
confirmed in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the "17 agencies"
line was fake news. While there are 17 American intelligence agencies and none, to his
knowledge, objected to the CIA/FBI/NSA report, none of the other 14 agencies have published any
independent confirmation of its claims.
The phrase "17 intelligence agencies" seems to have entered the public discourse after
Hillary Clinton used it in her second debate with Trump. Despite its demonstrable inaccuracy,
it continues to feature in articles from across the mainstream media. For example, an
Associated
Press wire story that Breitbart News carried last week uncritically uses the 17-agency
figure.
For its part, the New York Times felt compelled to issue a correction after using
the same phrase. The following was added below Haberman's article:
Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials
about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said
Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment
was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the
American intelligence community.
Note: The figure of four agencies is reached by including Clapper's office in addition to
the three agencies that compiled the published report.
"... Whatever your take on the fact-checks, the media laundered and recycled a Clinton talking point without too much exploration of the intricacies through which the intelligence community reaches its conclusions. Until the New York Times wrote up a correction, that is. ..."
Trump criticizes media over alleged mind-meld of '17 intelligence agencies' over Russia
meddling - The Washington Post As a matter of timing, it was odd: Last week, the New York Times
attached a lumpy correction to a story about the political dynamics of President Trump's
various proclamations on
Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election . The story highlighted the president's
various "asterisks, wisecracks, caveats or obfuscation" about Russian cyberattacks, and made a
reference to the consensus among "17 intelligence agencies" about Russian interference.
Here's the text:
Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials about
Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia
orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was
made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National
Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American
intelligence community.
News organizations had been repeating that "17 intelligence agencies" line for months and
months, with no corrections in sight. Why was the New York Times issuing a correction all of a
sudden? And why did the Associated Press
add a clarification one day later? Who asked for it? The New York Times declined to comment
beyond the correction. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence also declined to
comment on the record.
Whatever your take on the fact-checks, the media laundered and recycled a Clinton talking point without too much
exploration of the intricacies through which the intelligence community reaches its conclusions. Until the New York Times wrote
up a correction, that is.
"... For nearly a year, the news media in the United States has been completely and utterly dominated by one story above all the rest – Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, also known as "Russiagate." ..."
"... The story has mushroomed in the weeks since, melding with anti-Russian propaganda and accusations against President Donald Trump regarding his campaign's alleged collusion with the Russian government. However, the first accusations began to emerge when Clinton's campaign became derailed by the leaked emails of the Democratic National Committee and subsequently her campaign chair John Podesta. The Russian government was blamed for the leaks, even though substantial evidence pointed to a DNC insider as the real source of the leaks. ..."
"... The Associated Press followed ..."
"... "In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies -- the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency -- and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies. Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment." ..."
For nearly a year, the news media in the United States has been completely and utterly
dominated by one story above all the rest – Russia's alleged interference in the 2016
U.S. presidential election, also known as "Russiagate." The firestorm first began when Hillary
Clinton – darling of the U.S. intelligence community, the mainstream press, and Wall
Street – failed to win the electoral contests that the media had been convinced was her
for the taking.
The story has mushroomed in the weeks since, melding with anti-Russian propaganda and
accusations against President Donald Trump regarding his campaign's alleged collusion with the
Russian government. However, the first accusations began to emerge when Clinton's campaign
became derailed by the leaked emails of the Democratic National Committee and subsequently her
campaign chair John Podesta. The Russian government was blamed for the leaks, even though
substantial evidence pointed
to a DNC insider as the real source of the leaks.
Once the Russian hacker narrative became established, the media began working overtime to
connect Trump and his campaign to Russia – creating the illusion of a "bromance" between
Trump and Putin despite the fact that the two had never met. Much of the evidence
for the so-called "bromance" centered around Trump stating during the campaign that
he wanted to improve U.S.-Russia ties, which drastically deteriorated under the Obama
administration, and wanted to work with the Russians to defeat Daesh (ISIS).
The bromance and the campaign collusion narrative have been continuously and intensely
pushed by several high-ranking politicians of the Democratic Party. In fact, the push has been
so intense that it
has now backfired for Democrats.
As a result, it has since
become a "crime" in the eyes of the mainstream media for any U.S. politician to interact or
to have previously interacted with any Russian official. It has also meant that defending
Russia's government or its actions could quickly turn you into
the laughingstock of the mainstream press
But some of the most prestigious news organizations in the country have been forced to
retract a major claim that has stood at the center of the Russia hacking media frenzy:
namely that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence
the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump." Last week, both the New
York Times and The Associated
Press were forced to retract the claim from several of their articles, as the
oft-repeated statement has been proven to be false.
The New York Times was first,
adding a correction to a June 25th article which stated:
"A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials
about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia
orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was made
by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security
Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence
community."
"In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press
reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence
the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected
by three agencies -- the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency -- and published by the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies.
Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment."
One of the most enduring data points of the whole Trump-colluded-with-Russia
fantasy was the idea that there was a unanimity among US intelligence agencies that a) the
Russians had intervened in some way, and b) that intervention was calculated to help Trump. The
collusion conspiracy theorists have thrown on a third layer which is that members of Trump's
campaign were working hand-in-glove with the Russians to do something nefarious. What? Well, we
don't know.
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed
the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US
political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like
DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the
Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of
Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US
election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar
tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion
there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's
senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
The statement is tailored narrowly and only speaks to encouraging states to seek federal
help in securing their voting systems (though, given the federal government's track record in
keeping stuff secure, I'm not sure that's a great idea.)
A week later, in the final Clinton-Trump debate, Clinton made this claim
"... Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " ..."
During yesterday's Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, James Clapper, former director
of national intelligence, put the kibosh on a major anti-Donald Trump talking point that 17
federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election.
That talking point was amplified last October, when Hillary Clinton
stated the following at the third presidential debate: "We have 17, 17 intelligence
agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these
cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence
our election. I find that deeply disturbing."
Clinton was referring to an October 7, 2016 joint
statement from the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National
Intelligence claiming, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian
Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions,
including from U.S. political organizations."
The statement was followed by a January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community report assessing
Russian intentions during the presidential election.
While the U.S. Intelligence Community is indeed made up of 17 agencies, Clapper made clear
in his testimony yesterday that the community's assessments regarding alleged Russian
interference were not the product of all seventeen agencies but of three – the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security
Agency (NSA).
Referring to the assessments, Clapper
stated : "As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA and
the FBI, not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my
former office."
Later in the hearing, Clapper corrected Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) when Franken claimed that
all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded Russia attempted to influence the election.
FRANKEN: And I want to thank General Clapper and – and Attorney General Yates for
– for appearing today. We have – the intelligence communities have concluded all 17
of them that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that's right.
CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only
three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office
FRANKEN: But all 17 signed on to that?
CLAPPER: Well, we didn't go through that – that process, this was a special situation
because of the time limits and my – what I knew to be to who could really contribute to
this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment to restrict it
to those three. I'm not aware of anyone who dissented or – or disagreed when it came
out.
The January 6 U.S. intelligence community report is titled, "Background to
'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and
Cyber Incident Attribution."
The report makes clear it is a product of three intelligence agencies and not 17.
The opening states: "This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated
among the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the
National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and
disseminated by those three agencies."
Following Clinton's presidential debate
claim about "17 intelligence agencies," PolitiFact rated her statement as "true."
However, within its ruling, PolitiFact conceded:
We don't know how many separate investigations into the attacks there were. But the Director
of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country's 17 federal intelligence agencies,
released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia
is behind recent hacks into political organizations' emails.
PolitiFact's "true" judgement was the basis for a USA Today
piece titled, "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking."
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He
is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio." Follow him onTwitter @AaronKleinShow.Follow him
onFacebook.
"... How about Hillary telling her banker friends in her highly paid speeches that she needed to have "public views" different from her "private views"? You really think her "platform" had any credibility at all after a disclosure like that? ..."
"... Obama allowed Citigroup to pick his cabinet for him in 2008, and confessed to being "really good" at killing people. ..."
"... We must learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. We can survive Trump just like we survived W, but we will not survive continued control of our foreign policy by the PNAC inspired "Deep State". ..."
"... Guided by who? Saudis Arabia, Qatar, The Muslim Brotherhood, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, The CIA, Israel, General Petraues, Citigroup, The Clinton "Foundation" ..."
Wow, you really have drunk the kool-aid! Didn't you read any of the leaked emails?
How about Hillary telling her banker friends
in her highly paid speeches that she needed to have "public views" different from her "private views"? You really think her "platform"
had any credibility at all after a disclosure like that?
And Obama allowed Citigroup to pick his cabinet for him in 2008, and
confessed to being "really good" at killing people.
The only thing you are right about is our Democracy is broken (in fact, it
never existed in the USA). Willful blindness will not make us "Stronger Together", only dismantling the "Deep State" will do that.
We must learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. We can survive Trump just like we survived W, but we will not survive continued
control of our foreign policy by the PNAC inspired "Deep State".
turk 151 , December 14, 2017 at 1:22 pm
Guided by who? Saudis Arabia, Qatar, The Muslim Brotherhood, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, The CIA, Israel, General Petraues,
Citigroup, The Clinton "Foundation"
In a recently released Aug. 15, 2016 text message from Peter Strzok, a senior FBI
counterintelligence official, to his reputed lover, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Strzok
referenced an apparent plan to keep Trump from getting elected before suggesting the need for
"an insurance policy" just in case he did.
A serious investigation into Russia-gate might want to know what these senior FBI officials
had in mind.
"... Sir Andrew Wood is a close friend of Christopher Steele (of the Steele Dossier) and an associate of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd., which is Steele's private spy agency. [Does Steele still work for the British SIS, MI6?] "Before the election Steele had gone to Wood and shown him the dossier." (p.38). Wood is wired into the arch-NWO Chatham House, which is home to The Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the companion organization of which is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (q.v. "Tragedy and Hope" by Carrol Quigley; "The Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States foreign Policy" by Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter; "Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2104" by Laurence H. Shoup). ..."
"... I am starting to wonder if Luke Harding might be MI6 with journalism for a cover. ..."
Lately, I have been reading Luke Harding's "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win."
Harding is a journalist who works as a foreign correspondent for the Guardian newspaper. His book draws heavily upon the "Steele
Dossier." (q.v. Wikipedia: Donald Trump-Russian Dossier) Harding's Wikipedia page is also very interesting, as is some of the
information that he generously supplies in "Collusion." For example, on pp.37-38, Harding describes a three-day event in November
of 2016 that was sponsored by the Halifax International Security Forum in Halifax, N.S. Harding describes the objective of the
gathered international group as making sense of the world in the aftermath of Trump's stunning victory. Interestingly, Senator
John McCain was one of the delegates; however, the participation of Sir Andrew Wood, a former Ambassador to Russia from 1995-2000
is perhaps even more interesting. Wood and McCain were participants in the Ukraine panel.
Sir Andrew Wood is a close friend of Christopher Steele (of the Steele Dossier) and an associate of Orbis Business Intelligence
Ltd., which is Steele's private spy agency. [Does Steele still work for the British SIS, MI6?] "Before the election Steele had
gone to Wood and shown him the dossier." (p.38). Wood is wired into the arch-NWO Chatham House, which is home to The Royal Institute
for International Affairs (RIIA), the companion organization of which is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (q.v. "Tragedy
and Hope" by Carrol Quigley; "The Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States foreign Policy" by Laurence
H. Shoup and William Minter; "Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics,
1976-2104" by Laurence H. Shoup).
At this conference in Halifax, Harding reports that Wood briefed McCain about the contents of the Steele Dossier [rattle-tat-tattle-tale
MI6's "ScuttleTrump" operation seems to proceeding swimmingly at this point]. The senile senator from Arizona evidently decided
that " the implications [of the dossier] were sufficiently alarming to dispatch a former senior U.S. official to meet with Steele
and find out more." The emissary, David Kramer, is currently a senior director at the McCain institute for International Leadership:
Kramer was formerly the President of the highly questionable Freedom House, a nest of NWO neocons and neoliberals. (q.v. Wikipedia
article, Freedom House, especially the section on Criticism/Relationship with the U.S. Government.) Please, recall McCain's role
in the coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014.
I am starting to wonder if Luke Harding might be MI6 with journalism for a cover. Then there is the bizarre case of
Carter Page, the former U.S. Marine intelligence officer and purported lover of all things Russian and of Putin. This obsessive
enthusiast is beginning to remind me of another obsessive Russian enthusiast, U.S. Marine, and defector to the soviet Union; Patsy
Oswald. I am starting to look at this Trump-Russia fraud as more than a takedown of the crooked Don. It seems to be an ingenious
way of further demonizing Putin and the Russians, and, if so, it is working like a charm. The MSM echo chamber cannot get enough
of it. and neither can the NWO.
That question arise during recent senate session of Rosenstein
It's been suggested that Strzok's job as counterintelligence deputy would have made him the principal FBI liaison to CIA
Director Brennan.
Notable quotes:
"... Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post paid any price for their promotion of the invasion and destruction of Iraq. They might not get off as easy this time. One can hope. ..."
"... I can add one more. It's been suggested that Strzok's job as counterintelligence deputy would have made him the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director Brennan. At least this point was made explicitly in a recent LarouchePAC Live broadcast on Youtube (perhaps Will Wertz's presentation at last Saturday's Manhattan Project event) though I don't know what their evidence is. So we can ask: Was Peter Strzok the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director John Brennan? ..."
I've been seeing all sorts of places where this fellow Strzok's name pops up. Things like a FISA judge recusing himself. Things
like him possibly arranging things so Hillary was able to continue her run for President. At a super-right-wing site I found these
"questions".
Did Peter Strzok receive the Steele Dossier from Hillary Clinton on July 4th when he interviewed her?
If Hillary didn't give Strzok the dossier, who did?
Did Peter Strzok put together the FISA Court material, which included the Steele Dossier?
Did Peter Strzok go to the FISA Court and ask for the surveillance of the Trump team based on the Steele Dossier?
Did James Comey assign Peter Strzok to the Clinton email case?
Did James Comey assign Peter Strzok to the Trump surveillance case?
Did James Comey know that Peter Strzok was compromised when he sent him to interview Michael Flynn (where surveillance was
used to interview him based on the Steele Dossier that was presented to the FISA Court that Strzok put together?)
Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post paid any price for their promotion of the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
They might not get off as easy this time. One can hope.
Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 8:36 am
I can add one more. It's been suggested that Strzok's job as counterintelligence deputy would have made him the principal
FBI liaison to CIA Director Brennan. At least this point was made explicitly in a recent LarouchePAC Live broadcast on Youtube
(perhaps Will Wertz's presentation at last Saturday's Manhattan Project event) though I don't know what their evidence is. So
we can ask: Was Peter Strzok the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director John Brennan?
"... The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved senior FBI officials who played key roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing evidence that some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's presidency. ..."
"... As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American "deep state" exists and that it has maneuvered to remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveal how two high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as protecting the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as unfit as Trump. ..."
"... In the text messages, Strzok also expressed visceral contempt for working-class Trump voters, for instance, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support. it's scary real down here." ..."
"... Another text message suggested that other senior government officials – alarmed at the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined the discussion. In an apparent reference to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on Aug. 15, 2016, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." ..."
"... The scheme involved having some Democratic electors vote for former Secretary of State Colin Powell (which did happen), making him the third-place vote-getter in the Electoral College and thus eligible for selection by the House. But the plan fizzled when enough of Trump's electors stayed loyal to their candidate to officially make him President. ..."
"... After that, Trump's opponents turned to the Russia-gate investigation as the vehicle to create the conditions for somehow nullifying the election, impeaching Trump, or at least weakening him sufficiently so he could not take steps to improve relations with Russia. ..."
"... And, the new revelations of high-level FBI bias puts Clapper's statement about "hand-picked" analysts in sharper perspective, since any intelligence veteran will tell you that if you hand-pick the analysts you are effectively hand-picking the analysis. ..."
"... Although it has not yet been spelled out exactly what role Strzok and Page may have had in the Jan. 6 report, I was told by one source that Strzok had a direct hand in writing it. Whether that is indeed the case, Strzok, as a senior FBI counterintelligence official, would almost surely have had input into the selection of the FBI analysts and thus into the substance of the report itself. [For challenges from intelligence experts to the Jan. 6 report, see Consortiumnews.com's " More Holes in the Russia-gate Narrative. "] ..."
"... If the FBI contributors to the Jan. 6 report shared Strzok's contempt for Trump, it could explain why claims from an unverified dossier of Democratic-financed "dirt" on Trump, including salacious charges that Russian intelligence operatives videotaped Trump being urinated on by prostitutes in a five-star Moscow hotel, was added as a classified appendix to the report and presented personally to President-elect Trump. ..."
"... That discovery helped ensnare another senior Justice Department official, Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who talked with Steele during the campaign and had a post-election meeting with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson. Recently, Simpson has acknowledged that Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS last year to investigate Trump. ..."
"... But the story soon collapsed when it turned out that the date on the email was actually Sept. 14, 2016, i.e., the day after ..."
"... Yet, despite the cascade of errors and grudging corrections, including some belated admissions that there was no "17-intelligence-agency consensus" on Russian "hacking" – The New York Times made a preemptive strike against the new documentary evidence that the Russia-gate investigation was riddled with conflicts of interest. ..."
"... Pursuing the truth can be a fascinating hobby, that leads to a person awakening. Make it interesting, awaken your friend's curiosity. ..."
"... Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed to pay former MI6 agent and Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could verify the claims contained within the dossier – which relied on the cooperation of two senior Kremlin officials. (One more time for you, Walter Devine -- "if he [Steele] could verify the claims"). When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI wouldn't pay him according to the New York Times. ..."
"... Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier, Peter Strzok used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team. Steele was ultimately paid $168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier. ..."
"... Of interest to me is why the Republicans did not hammer Hillary for placing an ambassador in what was essentially a CIA compound in the first place. My guess and I can only guess is that they no objection to its being a ratline to ship Libya's stolen armaments to head-chopping jihadists (with USA blessing) fighting Assad. So to raise the issue of why putting an ambassador there would have opened the door to sensitive questions -- if the press would ask them, of course. ..."
"... That's the real Benghazi story the MSM won't talk about. Although I suspect the armaments were given to the head choppers by the CIA, and then they rebelled at having them transferred to the head choppers in Syria after they had succeeded in killing Ghaddafi. ..."
"... "Madame Secretary, WHY was it necessary to destroy Libya?" No republican asked THAT question. ..."
"... Hello Skip, nice to read your good comments again and to exchange info. Here is an article which talks about the weapons ratline in Syria. Within four days, the powerful anti-tank missiles that CIA bought in Bulgaria and (supposedly) delivered to "moderate" rebels, ended up in ISIS hands. The only problem with the article's narrative is that it is still drawing the official line that the lack of oversight is to blame for such, whilst it was clearly a deliberate action to supply weapons to ISIS wrapped up in plausible deniability of passing them through the hands of some poor inept souls serving as intermediaries. ..."
"... Starting a grand-scale investigation on the basis of allegations of conspiracy with another government and treason is rather dubious when these allegations from dirty campaign tactics are not based on any tangible facts. It is true that the Muller team does not leak as much to the press as the intelligence services did previously. This investigation still plays an important role for the media propaganda that still pushes the Russiagate conspiracy theory even though there had never been any factual basis for it and no evidence has been found in over a year. Since there is still this investigation is going on, they can use it for justifying their daily minutes of hate against Russia, their calls for censorship and denounciation of any political position that diverges from the neoconservative and neoliberal ideology. ..."
"... the most dubious thing was, of course, the lobbying related to a UN security council resolution vote, but that might at best hint at colluding with Israel, it certainly does not fit the Russiagate conspiracy theory ..."
"... So, if we judge the Muller investigation by its results, it is not going anywhere. Obviously, that is what should be expected when a commission is set up for investigating a conspiracy theory for which there had never been any evidence to begin with. I suppose the result would be similar if the Illuminati, the Elders of Zion, or reptiloids were officially investigated. ..."
"... It seems that the Muller team wants to delay that moment when they have to confess that the conspiracy theory has broken down, but that won't necessarily make it easier, either. ..."
"... Think you nailed it. The bankster regime changers already tried once to structurally adjust Russia into being a US puppet state in the 90s under Clinton. Russia was robbed blind while Yeltzin drank himself into a stupor. Putin is the one who put a stop to the looting. That is his crime against the western oligarchs and why he is enemy #1. ..."
"... There's no 'lack of discussion about what they have uncovered' which has basically amounted to a pile of dirt. Have not read from the VIPS and William Binney? Uncovering shady business with oligarchs doesn't show collusion, but the dossier oppo does, but it's business as usual. Denying the FBI-DNC server subpoena was odd don't you think? ..."
"... "Fusion GPS appears to be in the center of a web of corruption. Who hired Fusion GPS to ramp up its opposition research against Trump? Hillary Clinton and the DNC. the wife of Justice Department official Bruce G. Ohr worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 presidential election. Nellie Ohr is listed as working for the CIA's Open Source Works department in a 2010 DOJ report." Look how the CIA, FBI, and DNC have found each other and made a friendship forever. ..."
"... Also, do you personally have any concern about the murder of Seth Rich? -- Donna Brazil has become afraid of being Seth-Riched. How come? What kind of scum the Democratic apparatus has become? -- Guess Tony Podesta and Bill Clinton and madame "we came, we saw, he died ha, ha, ha " are the composite face of the Democratic Party today. ..."
"... Have at it Walter. What exactly have they uncovered? The "process" lost credibility long ago. The "intelligence" report of January 6th was garbage and it's been all downhill since. ..."
"... Obama's expulsion of the Russian diplomats after Trump's election, with no reason based on fact/danger to the USA gave a good start to the Russophobia encouraged by the Clinton losers and leading on to the ludicrous extreme situation still going on. ..."
"... Since the whole Guccifer 2.0 operation appears to be an attempt to falsely smear WikiLeaks as a Russian agent (by publicly claiming to be a hacker associated with WikiLeaks and then being "caught" releasing documents (the ones of June 15, 2016) with "Russian fingerprints"), perhaps his uploading files (Sept 13, 2016) to a server with (past) ties to someone associated with WikiLeaks (Kim Dot Com) would have been part of the same effort. ..."
"... Such a reversal of evidence and conclusion bespeaks deliberate deception. The motive is unclear, as the failed Newsweek is said to have been revived in 2013 by a Korean-American Christian fundamentalist David Jang formerly of Moon's Unification Church, whose followers consider him the Second Coming of JC, according to the linked source. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/ ..."
"... It's been a year and a half since Hillary Clinton first accused Donald Trump of being a Putin puppet and in collusion with the Kremlin. Any fool should be able to understand that if there existed any real evidence to support this accusation the world would have seen it under banner headlines long ago. ..."
"... Thank you for your spot-on analysis! The motives of the deep state – including FBI operatives, NY Times and WAPO – is crystal clear. They do not want Trump to be president, and are determined to either remove him or handcuff him indefinitely. But why? Why has the establishment gone crazy? Is it simply political, or something deeper and darker? ..."
"... The real "deep" reason is the PNAC plot to make sure that the USA remains the sole super power that can impose its will anywhere in the world. Trump's campaign position of seeking detente with Russia would have led us into a multi-polar world giving Russia a sphere of influence. That is unacceptable to the empire. ..."
"... RussiaGate is an attempt to remove Trump from power, or at a minimum make it impossible for him to seek detente. I am no Trump apologist, but I do think our only hope for a future in this nuclear age is to seek peace and cooperation in a multi-polar world that respects national sovereignty and the rule of law. I suspect Trump will continue to be brought to heel, with or without the success of RussiaGate. And there is always the JFK solution as a last resort. ..."
"... Where is William Binney's "Thin String" signals intelligence (SIGINT) software when it's needed? Wouldn't it be lovely to focus it on the communications of our own government? Binney says applying it after 9/11 to the pre-9/11 communications streams did successfully predict the 9/11 attacks. If only we had stored all communications of government officials dating back to . hey, let's say 1774 or so, what truths might we now know, and what proofs might we now have? What would FDR's communications prior to Pearl Harbor reveal? What about the JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X assassinations? ..."
Exclusive: Taking on water from revealed FBI conflicts of interest, the foundering
Russia-gate probe – and its mainstream media promoters – are resorting to insults
against people who note the listing ship, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved
senior FBI officials who played key roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the
supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing evidence that
some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's
presidency.
Peter Strzok, who served as a Deputy Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, second in command of counterintelligence.
As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American "deep state"
exists and that it has maneuvered to remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior
FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveal how two
high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as
protecting the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as
unfit as Trump.
In one Aug. 6, 2016 text exchange, Page told Strzok: "Maybe you're meant to stay where you
are because you're meant to protect the country from that menace." At the end of that text, she
sent Strzok a link to a David Brooks
column in The New York Times, which concludes with the clarion call: "There comes a time
when neutrality and laying low become dishonorable. If you're not in revolt, you're in cahoots.
When this period and your name are mentioned, decades hence, your grandkids will look away in
shame."
Apparently after reading that stirring advice, Strzok replied, "And of course I'll try and
approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many
levels, not sure if that helps."
At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, criticized
Strzok's boast that "I can protect our country at many levels." Jordan said: "this guy thought
he was super-agent James Bond at the FBI [deciding] there's no way we can let the American
people make Donald Trump the next president."
In the text messages, Strzok also expressed visceral contempt for working-class Trump
voters, for instance, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I
could SMELL the Trump support. it's scary real down here."
Another text message suggested that other senior government officials – alarmed at
the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined the discussion. In an apparent reference
to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on Aug.
15, 2016, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk."
Strzok added, "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before
you're 40."
It's unclear what strategy these FBI officials were contemplating to ensure Trump's defeat,
but the comments mesh with what an intelligence source told me after the 2016 election, that
there was a plan among senior Obama administration officials to use the allegations about
Russian meddling to block Trump's momentum with the voters and -- if elected -- to persuade
members of the Electoral College to deny Trump a majority of votes and thus throw the selection
of a new president into the House of Representatives under the rules of the Twelfth
Amendment .
The scheme involved having some Democratic electors vote for former Secretary of State
Colin Powell (which did happen), making him the third-place vote-getter in the Electoral
College and thus eligible for selection by the House. But the plan fizzled when enough of
Trump's electors stayed loyal to their candidate to officially make him President.
After that, Trump's opponents turned to the Russia-gate investigation as the vehicle to
create the conditions for somehow nullifying the election, impeaching Trump, or at least
weakening him sufficiently so he could not take steps to improve relations with
Russia.
In one of her text messages to Strzok, Page made reference to a possible Watergate-style
ouster of Trump, writing: "Bought all the president's men. Figure I needed to brush up on
watergate."
As a key feature in this oust-Trump effort, Democrats have continued to lie by claiming that
"all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred" in the assessment that Russia hacked the
Democratic emails last year on orders from President Vladimir Putin and then slipped them to
WikiLeaks to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign.
That canard was used in the early months of the Russia-gate imbroglio to silence any
skepticism about the "hacking" accusation, and the falsehood was repeated again by a Democratic
congressman during Wednesday's hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
But the "consensus" claim was never true. In May 2017 testimony ,
President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged that the Jan. 6
"Intelligence Community Assessment" was put together by "hand-picked" analysts from only three
agencies: the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
Biased at the Creation
And, the new revelations of high-level FBI bias puts Clapper's statement about
"hand-picked" analysts in sharper perspective, since any intelligence veteran will tell you
that if you hand-pick the analysts you are effectively hand-picking the analysis.
Although it has not yet been spelled out exactly what role Strzok and Page may have had
in the Jan. 6 report, I was told by one source that Strzok had a direct hand in writing it.
Whether that is indeed the case, Strzok, as a senior FBI counterintelligence official, would
almost surely have had input into the selection of the FBI analysts and thus into the substance
of the report itself. [For challenges from intelligence experts to the Jan. 6 report, see
Consortiumnews.com's " More Holes in the
Russia-gate Narrative. "]
If the FBI contributors to the Jan. 6 report shared Strzok's contempt for Trump, it
could explain why claims from an unverified
dossier of Democratic-financed "dirt" on Trump, including salacious charges that Russian
intelligence operatives videotaped Trump being urinated on by prostitutes in a five-star Moscow
hotel, was added as a
classified appendix to the report and presented personally to President-elect
Trump.
Though Democrats and the Clinton campaign long denied financing the dossier – prepared
by ex-British spy Christopher Steele who claimed to rely on second- and third-hand information
from anonymous Russian contacts – it was revealed in
October 2017 that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign shared in the
costs, with the payments going to the "oppo" research firm, Fusion GPS, through the Democrats'
law firm, Perkins Coie.
That discovery helped ensnare another senior Justice Department official, Associate
Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who
talked with Steele during the campaign and had a post-election meeting with Fusion GPS
co-founder Glenn Simpson. Recently, Simpson has
acknowledged that Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS last year to investigate
Trump.
Bruce Ohr has since been demoted and Strzok was quietly removed from the Russia-gate
investigation last July although the reasons for these moves were not publicly explained at the
time.
Still, the drive for "another Watergate" to oust an unpopular – and to many insiders,
unfit – President remains at the center of the thinking among the top mainstream news
organizations as they have scrambled for Russia-gate "scoops" over the past year even
at the cost of making serious reporting errors .
For instance, last Friday, CNN -- and then CBS News and MSNBC -- trumpeted an email
supposedly sent from someone named Michael J. Erickson on Sept. 4, 2016, to Donald Trump Jr.
that involved WikiLeaks offering the Trump campaign pre-publication access to purloined
Democratic National Committee emails that WikiLeaks published on Sept. 13, nine days later.
Grasping for Confirmation
Since the Jan. 6 report alleged that WikiLeaks received the "hacked" emails from Russia -- a
claim that WikiLeaks and Russia deny -- the story seemed to finally tie together the notion
that the Trump campaign had at least indirectly colluded with Russia.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at
Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, Arizona. March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)
This new "evidence" spread like wildfire across social media. As The Intercept's Glenn
Greenwald
wrote in an article critical of the media's performance, some Russia-gate enthusiasts
heralded the revelation with graphics of cannons booming and nukes exploding.
But the story soon collapsed when it turned out that the date on the email was actually
Sept. 14, 2016, i.e., the day after WikiLeaks released the batch of DNC emails, not
Sept. 4. It appeared that "Erickson" – whoever he was – had simply alerted the
Trump campaign to the public existence of the WikiLeaks disclosure.
Greenwald
noted , "So numerous are the false stories about Russia and Trump over the last year that I
literally cannot list them all."
Yet, despite the cascade of errors and grudging corrections, including some belated
admissions that there was no
"17-intelligence-agency consensus" on Russian "hacking" – The New York Times made a
preemptive strike against the new documentary evidence that the Russia-gate investigation was
riddled with conflicts of interest.
The Times'
lead editorial on Wednesday mocked reporters at Fox News for living in an "alternate
universe" where the Russia-gate "investigation is 'illegitimate and corrupt,' or so says Gregg
Jarrett, a legal analyst who appears regularly on [Sean] Hannity's nightly exercise in
presidential ego-stroking."
Though briefly mentioning the situation with Strzok's text messages, the Times offered no
details or context for the concerns, instead just heaping ridicule on anyone who questions the
Russia-gate narrative.
"To put it mildly, this is insane," the Times declared. "The primary purpose of Mr.
Mueller's investigation is not to take down Mr. Trump. It's to protect America's national
security and the integrity of its elections by determining whether a presidential campaign
conspired with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election – a proposition that
grows more plausible every day."
The Times fumed that "roughly three-quarters of Republicans still refuse to accept that
Russia interfered in the 2016 election – a fact that is glaringly obvious to everyone
else, including the nation's intelligence community." (There we go again with the false
suggestion of a consensus within the intelligence community.)
The Times also took to task Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, for seeking "a Special
Counsel to investigate ALL THINGS 2016 – not just Trump and Russia." The Times insisted
that "None of these attacks or insinuations are grounded in good faith."
But what are the Times editors so afraid of? As much as they try to insult and intimidate
anyone who demands serious evidence about the Russia-gate allegations, why shouldn't the
American people be informed about how Washington insiders manipulate elite opinion in pursuit
of reversing "mistaken" judgments by the unwashed masses?
Do the Times editors really believe in democracy – a process that historically has had
its share of warts and mistakes – or are they just elitists who think they know best and
turn away their noses from the smell of working-class people at Walmart?
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
mike k , December 13, 2017 at 9:54 pm
The NYT is just another tool of the multi-billionaire oligarchs who rule this USA from the
shadows. They fear nothing more than the light. When that investigative light gets strong
enough, more and more ordinary folks will begin to awake to the massive fraud that has been
perpetrated at their expense. And when that happens, we will finally see the Oligarchy begin
to crumble under the pressure of the 99%. The truth will out, then heads will roll ..
mike k , December 13, 2017 at 10:00 pm
Keep up the pressure – get your friends interested, tell them about CN,
Counterpunch, Strategic-Culture, Chris Hedges, etc. Pursuing the truth can be a fascinating
hobby, that leads to a person awakening. Make it interesting, awaken your friend's
curiosity.
incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:04 am
How about also including RT in your list? It's a news and commentary site with strong
journalistic values and credibility, notwithstanding what the Administration or the MSM may
say or imply.
T.J , December 14, 2017 at 8:45 am
If RT didn't have the qualities you describe, attempts by the Administration and the MSM
to discredit it would have been successful. However they will attempt to silence it by other
means.
Adam Kraft , December 14, 2017 at 11:59 am
Very true TJ. I found counterpunch when wapo / propornot blacklisted them. Gave 'em creds
imo. I also like mint press, occupy, naked capitalism, **world socialist website**,
disobedient media, truthout, some of Glenns work on the Intercept and my youtube subs
include: wearechange, **anonymous Scandinavia**, **the jimmy dore show**, RT America, TeleSUR
English*, Zoon Politikon, **democracy at work**, HA Goodman, theRealNews*, mintpressnews,
watching the hawks, secular talk, laura kinhtlinger, judicial watch, empire files, redacted
tonight, TBTV, a little from Julian Assange's twitter.
tina , December 14, 2017 at 11:06 pm
what about Al-Jazeera?
Erik G , December 14, 2017 at 8:03 am
Good suggestion; in such persuasion, one must respectfully suggest better sources and
avoid any conflict.
Mr. Parry has well summarized for beginners these essential counterpoints to the mass
media propaganda.
I like this use of "awakened," in contrast to the establishment culture's fascination with
"woke." People don't need to get woke. They need to become awakened. Thanks to Robert
Parry.
Walter Devine , December 13, 2017 at 10:15 pm
I thought we were waiting to hear what the evidence is found. The lack of discussion about
what they have uncovered seems to me to speak of a professional operation. Once they are done
and present what they have found, then everyone can get on their soap boxes and let loose. As
for Bias, that exists in everyone to some extent or another, where was the moral outrage from
the Republicans charging this today when the Benghazi investigation was being conducted by
folks with known axes to grind themselves? It is the Washington hypocrisy machine at its most
obvious. As for the media, print or otherwise, they are just preaching to their choirs in
order to sell whatever their particular consumers are buying. Frankly I have come to expect
more from you than this article Mr. Parry, here's hoping
Robert Gardner , December 13, 2017 at 10:45 pm
I've been skeptical out the Russian conspiracy so far, but I agree with what Walter Devine
wrote.
tina , December 13, 2017 at 11:42 pm
I am still waiting . Mr. Parry can ride on his story back in the 1980's. We are in 2017,
The internet is good. What did those people in Washington do today? get rid of net
neutrality? Love you all people on CN, Happy Hanukah Merry Christmas, and Kwanzaa, And the
winter solstice. Peace to all. Love, tina everyone is going to believe that they want to
believe.
incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:08 am
Are you kidding about Benghazi? Obviously you have still not informed yourself about the
egregious security breakdown of the Administration or how the Benghazi facility factored into
the CIA's proxy war in Syria. (And, btw, where was Hillary "Rod up her Hiney" Clinton when
that '3AM call' came in at 4pm?
"By placing the interests of the Obama administration over the public's interests, the order
is yet another data point highlighting the politicization of the FBI: After the September 11,
2012 attack against U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, the Obama administration
peddled a lie, telling the public that the attack was related to Muslims who had become
enraged at an anti-Islam YouTube video, and not a planned act of terrorism – despite
Hillary Clinton emailing Chelsea Clinton from her unsecure @clintonemail.com server the night
of the attack to say exactly that."
In 2016, [the FBI] received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" The "dossier" was a
compendium of allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled
by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House
investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee.
Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed
to pay former MI6 agent and Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could
verify the claims contained within the dossier – which relied on the cooperation of two
senior Kremlin officials. (One more time for you, Walter Devine -- "if he [Steele] could
verify the claims"). When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI
wouldn't pay him according to the New York Times.
Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier, Peter Strzok used it to
launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team. Steele was ultimately
paid $168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier.
-- Have you noticed the numbers for payments? The bank records? The names? -- these are the
evidence. Or you believe that there a Bias against the miserable Steele?
bobzz , December 14, 2017 at 3:06 pm
Of interest to me is why the Republicans did not hammer Hillary for placing an ambassador
in what was essentially a CIA compound in the first place. My guess and I can only guess is
that they no objection to its being a ratline to ship Libya's stolen armaments to
head-chopping jihadists (with USA blessing) fighting Assad. So to raise the issue of why
putting an ambassador there would have opened the door to sensitive questions -- if the press
would ask them, of course.
Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 4:28 pm
That's the real Benghazi story the MSM won't talk about. Although I suspect the armaments
were given to the head choppers by the CIA, and then they rebelled at having them transferred
to the head choppers in Syria after they had succeeded in killing Ghaddafi.
Jon Adams , December 14, 2017 at 6:17 pm
"Madame Secretary, WHY was it necessary to destroy Libya?" No republican asked THAT
question.
Kiza , December 14, 2017 at 7:16 pm
Hello Skip, nice to read your good comments again and to exchange info. Here is an article
which talks about the weapons ratline in Syria. Within four days, the powerful anti-tank
missiles that CIA bought in Bulgaria and (supposedly) delivered to "moderate" rebels, ended
up in ISIS hands. The only problem with the article's narrative is that it is still drawing
the official line that the lack of oversight is to blame for such, whilst it was clearly a
deliberate action to supply weapons to ISIS wrapped up in plausible deniability of passing
them through the hands of some poor inept souls serving as intermediaries.
Thus, the CIA kept being surprised that its powerful weapons kept ending up in ISIS hands but
kept doing the same over and over: oops an oversight mistake, oops and another one, oops one
more, and another one, . the two hundredth one
Starting a grand-scale investigation on the basis of allegations of conspiracy with
another government and treason is rather dubious when these allegations from dirty campaign
tactics are not based on any tangible facts. It is true that the Muller team does not leak as
much to the press as the intelligence services did previously. This investigation still plays
an important role for the media propaganda that still pushes the Russiagate conspiracy theory
even though there had never been any factual basis for it and no evidence has been found in
over a year. Since there is still this investigation is going on, they can use it for
justifying their daily minutes of hate against Russia, their calls for censorship and
denounciation of any political position that diverges from the neoconservative and neoliberal
ideology.
I wonder how long this can go on. So far, the indictments of the Muller team have had
nothing to do with the Russiagate conspiracy theory. Paul Manafort was indicted for tax
evasion related to lobbying business with Ukraine, mostly years ago. Michael Flynn was
indicted because when he reported a call from his holidays to the Russian ambassador to the
FBI more than three weeks later, he left out two elements (the FBI had the recordings from
the NSA, anyway, so they wouldn't have had to ask him about the telephone call). There was
nothing illegal about the contents of the telephone call (the most dubious thing was, of
course, the lobbying related to a UN security council resolution vote, but that might at best
hint at colluding with Israel, it certainly does not fit the Russiagate conspiracy theory).
It seems quite plausible that Flynn just forgot these two elements of a telephone call in
which quite a large number of points was raised and that he pleaded guilty because of a plea
deal (otherwise he might have been indicted in connection with his lobbying work for Turkey).
Superficially, the closest to the idea of Russiagate is the indictment of Papadopoulos,
someone who played a minor role in the Trump campaign and was looking for contacts with
Russians, but, as it seems did not get very far (for some reasons he seemed to think a
Russian woman he was talking with was a relative of Putin). His actions may have been
naïve or misguided, but nothing about them was illegal, like in the case of Michael
Flynn, he is only accused of lying to the FBI about normal, legal actions.
So, if we judge the Muller investigation by its results, it is not going anywhere.
Obviously, that is what should be expected when a commission is set up for investigating a
conspiracy theory for which there had never been any evidence to begin with. I suppose the
result would be similar if the Illuminati, the Elders of Zion, or reptiloids were officially
investigated.
The question is how they will wind down. If they just say that apart from things like
Manafort's possible tax evation and Flynn's lobbying for Israel, they have not found anything
– certainly nothing that confirms the Russiagate conspiracy theory -, that will be
quite difficult, people will demand that it is investigated how it came about that such a
conspiracy was spread and played such an influential role in political discourse for some
time. It seems that the Muller team wants to delay that moment when they have to confess that
the conspiracy theory has broken down, but that won't necessarily make it easier, either.
Antiwar7 , December 14, 2017 at 7:24 am
How long should we wait until we hear of ONE, that's right, ONE piece of evidence backing
these claims up? Please answer: 2 years? 10 years? The only evidence so far amounts to "trust
us".
And that's ignoring the monumental number of pieces of false evidence that have been put
forward. That in itself makes the whole "investigation" suspicious. On top of the long,
documented history of the CIA planting false stories in the press.
bobzz , December 14, 2017 at 3:09 pm
I don't know. How long did it take the Dutch to cook the evidence to condemn Russian
partisans for the downing of the Malaysian airliner -- with Ukraine holding a gun to their
heads.
Dunno , December 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm
Dear Mr. 7, I have come to the grudging conclusion that Russia-gate is and has always been
more about Russia and Putin than about the crooked Don. If we stop to think about it, Trump
has succumbed to the deep control of the Deep-State colossus. Russia evil; Israel good! Got
it? When the pathetic wiener & crotch-grabber isn't bitchin' for Bibi and doing little
pooch tricks for Israel, he is being programmed by the pentagon and the Deep State, and
making sure that the super-rich get super richer. His own SOS Tillerson called him an effin'
moron. Enough said!
Therefore, 7, Russia-gate is all about keeping the pot boiling for the presidential
election in Russia next year. Demonizing Putin and Russia is the new great game of our era.
The NWO Nebula lusts after Russia's geostrategic location and its abundant resources. It's
1905-1925 all over again. Read the book, "Wall Street and the Russian Revolution 1905-1925"
by Richard B. Spence and also take a gander at Trine Day books' website of suppressed books.
The deep-state Plutocrats and their secret societies hatch their evil little plots, while
trying to keep the rest of us in the dark. Right now, Trump is a convenient platform for
anti-Russian propaganda.
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:24 pm
Think you nailed it. The bankster regime changers already tried once to structurally
adjust Russia into being a US puppet state in the 90s under Clinton. Russia was robbed blind
while Yeltzin drank himself into a stupor. Putin is the one who put a stop to the looting.
That is his crime against the western oligarchs and why he is enemy #1.
Sam F , December 14, 2017 at 8:10 am
Once more the standard troll line about being a prior supporter, which plainly "Devine" is
not.
We are well over a year into this matter with nothing but speculation and manufactured
claims.
It is clear that Russia-gate = Israel-gate, a diversion from zionist control of the DNC.
Where is the concern of "Devine" for the lack of investigation of control of elections and
mass media by Israel?
Why does he seek to cover up the complete destruction of democracy by the foreign power
Israel?
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:43 pm
Oliver Stone had this to say on the matter on FaceBook. If you're on FB, here is the
link.
facts don't show bias walt. yeah, media sells to the public, but they're also selling (or
trading narratives for access) to the gov't. Wikileaks exposed the MSM – DNC collusion
and we've witnessed the leaks and anonymous sources from the IC. Trust the CIA?
There's no 'lack of discussion about what they have uncovered' which has basically
amounted to a pile of dirt. Have not read from the VIPS and William Binney? Uncovering shady
business with oligarchs doesn't show collusion, but the dossier oppo does, but it's business
as usual. Denying the FBI-DNC server subpoena was odd don't you think?
I personally believe that progressive hope dies at the DNC and exposing the party's lies
(their private and public views) and undemocratic practices (preliminary process,
fundraising) is the best thing for the country. It brings us one step closer to potentially
building a third party that represents the proletariat and petty bourgeois classes.
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:49 pm
I agree with your sentiment, but I'm finding it disturbing how many so called progressives
are convinced beyond any doubt, despite the evidence I produce to instill doubt, that Russia
interfered in "our democracy."
They have come unglued to the point of idiocy over Trump. They are firmly in the clutches
of the CIA Deep State apparatus.
"Fusion GPS appears to be in the center of a web of corruption. Who hired Fusion GPS to ramp
up its opposition research against Trump? Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
the wife of Justice Department official Bruce G. Ohr worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016
presidential election. Nellie Ohr is listed as working for the CIA's Open Source Works
department in a 2010 DOJ report."
Look how the CIA, FBI, and DNC have found each other and made a friendship forever.
Also, do you personally have any concern about the murder of Seth Rich? -- Donna Brazil has
become afraid of being Seth-Riched. How come? What kind of scum the Democratic apparatus has
become? -- Guess Tony Podesta and Bill Clinton and madame "we came, we saw, he died ha, ha,
ha " are the composite face of the Democratic Party today.
@ Walter Devine: "Once they are done and present what they have found, then everyone can
get on their soap boxes and let loose."
But overlook that the Democrats and mainstream media are doing the opposite? It seems to
me that this is precisely the point that Mr. Parry's reporting has been aimed at, that the
Democrats and mainstream media are jumping enormously to RussiaGate conclusions without
disclosing any evidence to back up their incredibly dangerous claims and that there *is* very
strong evidence of ulterior motives.
Gregory Herr , December 14, 2017 at 8:22 pm
Have at it Walter. What exactly have they uncovered? The "process" lost credibility long
ago. The "intelligence" report of January 6th was garbage and it's been all downhill
since.
Peter de Klerk , December 14, 2017 at 8:53 pm
I had great respect Parry's earlier writing which had a healthy dose of MSM skepticism
(albeit largely for personal reasons). This whole business of jumping to conclusions on the
Russia meddling has put me off him totally. All the reporting seems to be in service of
defending a forgone conclusion. I wonder if this has anything to do with fundraising.
This whole Russia ate my lunch has entered the realm of alternate truth. The MSM are now
actually stating that the Russian hacking the 2016 election as fact. Just like all the other
false and fabricated statements of world events in the last 20 years . Fro Yugoslavia,
Milosovic exonerated for the falsely laid charges of genocide . How convenient after his
death . Qadaffi murdering and slaughtering his own people hence RPL interventionist and voila
the highest standard of living in the African continent is now reduced to takfiri heaven for
the NATO proxy army recruiting centre. MH17 disaster is still being paroled as Russian
deliberate murder. No facts no evidence that would stand even in a Stalinist show trial.
Assad gassing his own people. More than debunked by multiple sources and US academics to boot
no still being paroled as fact by western MSM.
The whole charade post 9/11 has gone into this Orwellian nightmare that just keep on growing
and news and information has become pure Hollwoodian fantasy that the sheeple are sleep
walking into this futuristic hell hole that these vile masters of the universe will not be
able to back track without losing face and without causing the populace to stand up and be
counted and kick tjhese vile players out for good.
john wilson , December 14, 2017 at 6:00 am
Take heart Falcemartello, its not all bad. Over here in the Britain RT has its own free to
view TV channel which sits next to the BBC news and the parliament programme. It is now
widely watched by the public and has millions of viewers with many using RT as their main
news source. The fact that the American deep state criminals have made things difficult for
RT America in the US, is a clear indication that the fake news masters otherwise known as the
MSN, and their handlers in the deep state are rattled by the ever growing alternative voice.
Its up to you, me and the rest of the posters on CN to tell our friends colleagues and others
about CN, RT etc. If only one percent take a look then alternative opinion will start to
filter through and more importantly, show the public what liars and criminals are in charge
of their country.
Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 8:15 am
Thanks for the info John. I am really glad that at least Britain has a reasonable degree
of freedom of the press. If it spreads across Europe, the USA may eventually find itself so
isolated by its own propaganda that the whole evil empire scheme will implode, and we will
have to learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. That is my Christmas wish.
BobS , December 14, 2017 at 11:36 am
It's not difficult to get RT in the US- I watch it regularly on Dish Network. Youtube is
another option- I'm guessing it's big and rich enough to survive any changes in net
neutrality that will result from the Trump/Pai FCC (of course, Obama and Clinton were just as
bad, DEEP STATE!!!!, etc.).
If you're going to tout conspiracies, get your facts straight.
rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 4:48 pm
John Pilger has an article in counterpunch explaining the importance of documentaries (not
just his!). It is notable that his first one, on Cambodia, in 1970, was shown free to air on
TV in the UK and thirity other countries, with huge audience impact, but refused by PBS as
too disturbing!!
The free press in the USA is in tune with the ptb.
rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 5:06 pm
I see the Pilger article is here on consortiumnews. It is worth a read, like the rest
here!
Kiza , December 14, 2017 at 7:58 pm
What you wrote john wilson is simply not the complete truth, although I wish it was. It is
true that RT UK has its own terrestrial digital TV channel. It appears that Margarita
Simonyan bid for such channel at an auction when Britain was converting from analogue to
digital TV and got it. Thus, the British TV viewers can now see RT without any subscription
or special equipment, "next to BBC" as you optimistically say.
What you did not mention john wilson is that the British Government regulator Ofcom is
putting severe pressure on RT because their news offered an alternative view to the British
propaganda. They rinse and repeat the same biased-news allegations almost every year, keeping
RT UK under constant threat of the loss of its broadcasting licence due to "breach of truth
standards" = "fake news". They even banned the lightbox, radio and other media advertising
campaign of RT in Britain, the so called "RT is the second opinion", only because the
campaign claimed that if RT existed before UK attack on Iraq in 2003, Tony Blair may have not
been successful in passing the war resolutions through the parliament.
What most people do not appreciate is that the methods of suppression are not the same in
all Western countries, and why should they be? Simonyan got a terrestrial TV channel and the
broadcasting licence because of the British propaganda hubris – the British still
believed that their post-imperial propaganda is the best in the World, just because it was
the best in the world during the empire. They simply never expected the Russians to be so
successful, just the same as US.
In summary:
US => force RT to register as a foreign agent to force reporting of every little detail of
its operations; refuse journalistic credentials to Congress etc to disadvantage its
reporting
UK => keep constant threat of the loss of broadcasting licence to skew the reporting
towards the British Government version of the news
I post the links relevant to what I wrote here separately to avoid being put on hold.
Philip Giraldi writes about a shift occurring over at the CIA in Trump's favor, Politico's
interview with a somewhat repentant Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't
that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled with a discovery of
FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital?
Just say'n.
rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 4:52 pm
Obama's expulsion of the Russian diplomats after Trump's election, with no reason based on
fact/danger to the USA gave a good start to the Russophobia encouraged by the Clinton losers
and leading on to the ludicrous extreme situation still going on.
Spot on Bob, the unfortunate and idealistic Mr Seth Rich became the DNC's bottom line, the
shining example of its "anything goes as long as we have friends in the right places" (FBI,
DOJ, CIA, etc etc).
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 9:04 pm
Agreed. Let's not forget Process Server for the DNC Fraud Lawsuit Shawn Lucas who died
mysteriously 2 weeks after serving the DNC either.
I never would have believed the rot in the Democratic Party establishment would rival the
Republicans, but here we are.
Anon , December 14, 2017 at 8:23 am
"Tina" is a troll assigned to CN to claim extremism, and never presents evidence or
argument.
Steven A , December 13, 2017 at 11:16 pm
This is another great review by Robert Parry. However, he again uses the formulation that
"WikiLeaks published" and "WikiLeaks released" purloined DNC emails on September 13, 2016.
Greenwald and the Washington Post have stated, more carefully, that WikiLeaks "promoted" the
data source of these emails by means of a Tweet on that date.
Adam Carter noted in a comment under Parry's previous article that the DNC emails in
question are the NGP/VAN files associated with Guccifer 2.0's pre-announced "hack" on July 5,
2016 and reportedly released by him on Sept 13, 2016.
In fact, they are certainly not part of WikiLeak's official archive. One can see from
their website that they published nothing between the times of the DNC emails release of July
22, 2016 and the Podesta emails release of October 7. So "published" is clearly the wrong
word.
Whether or in what sense it may fairly be stated that WikiLeaks "released", "promoted" or
"uploaded" (as according to the Erickson email, which probably represents nothing more than
an outsider's impression) the September 13 files needs to be cautiously assessed. Their Tweet
did include an access key, as did the Erickson email, and the address for the file given in
the latter was a "mega.nz" address. I assume that this address is associated with Kim Dot
Com, who also claims to have been involved with WikiLeaks.
Did Guccifer 2.0 himself upload the files to mega.nz? Did he play Kim Dot Com to use the
latter's association with Wikileaks to get Wikileaks itself to put out the Sept 13 Tweet
advertising the data release? I'm not sure how this all worked, but it seems that it is
misleading to simply refer to this set of emails as having been "published" by Wikileaks.
incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:12 am
Didn't you read the VIPS analyses of the DNC leaks?
Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 8:21 am
Yes, I did, but not while writing my comment above. Do they say anything relevant to the
question of whether it is accurate to correct the false media report that the Trump campaign
was given access to the NGP/VAN DNC emails before WikiLeaks published them with a "corrected"
statement that the Trump campaign was notified (but may never have noticed) of a link to
those files by a random member of the public _after WikiLeaks had already published them_? As
I recall, the original VIPS memo was itself somewhat confused about the distinction between
the NGP/VAN material and the five DNC documents made public by "Guccifer 2.0" on June 15,
2016, so I'm not sure one will find anything relevant to my question there.
While it is true that the "correction" here is _much_ closer to the truth than the
original misinformation, the underlined part at the end of my question still seems misleading
in that the "publication" is attributed to WikiLeaks without qualification. And it seems
Parry is not the only one to make this mistake. As Adam Carter pointed out two days ago, he
was very surprised that almost no one has been noticing that the files in question came from
"Guccifer 2.0" and not from WikiLeaks. While Parry's attribution misleading, I am still not
clear in my own mind about precisely what did happen, i.e. how WikiLeaks came to "promote"
the release of the files and whether in some loose or indirect sense WikiLeaks did "release"
them.
mike k , December 14, 2017 at 11:08 am
Is there really any other purpose in your involved questioning but seeking to cloud and
confuse the obvious issues in the "Russia hacked" affair?
Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 2:05 pm
How is it clouding the issue to suggest, as Adam Carter did, that one element in Parry's
(and others') description of the facts in an otherwise excellent article seems to be
misleading?
@ "the address for the file given in the latter was a "mega.nz" address. I assume that
this address is associated with Kim Dot Com, who also claims to have been involved with
WikiLeaks."
These are the sort of details I haven't been familiar with and about which I was hoping to
learn more – so thanks! I was relying on a vague impression from memory when I made the
link between the "mega.nz" address seen in the email from Erickson and Kim Dot Com.
Since the whole Guccifer 2.0 operation appears to be an attempt to falsely smear WikiLeaks
as a Russian agent (by publicly claiming to be a hacker associated with WikiLeaks and then
being "caught" releasing documents (the ones of June 15, 2016) with "Russian fingerprints"),
perhaps his uploading files (Sept 13, 2016) to a server with (past) ties to someone
associated with WikiLeaks (Kim Dot Com) would have been part of the same effort.
Thus the statement that "WikiLeaks published" the files in question (repeated by Parry,
Justin Raimondo and others) appears to be false. I share the surprise expressed by Adam
Carter (under Parry's previous piece) that few appear to have noticed or bothered to correct
this error – even though they were on target in exposing the main part of the latest
MSM lie.
Those of us who live within the Outlaw US Empire have been seduced by lies Big and small
since we could understand language. RussiaGate is an example of a Big Lie, just as the Outlaw
US Empire being a democracy is a Big Lie–both are indoctrinational. Santa Claus, Tooth
Fairy, Easter Bunny, Great Pumpkin, Sand Man, Cupid, et al are other excellent examples of
indoctrinational Big Lies. One of the most severe is the maxim delivered from parents: You
must share and play nice, when the real world acts in the exact opposite fashion. What's
more, RussiaGate serves as a cover-up for several major crimes–some by Clinton, some by
DNC, some by FBI, some by Justice Department, and some by CIA: None of them are being
actively investigated despite there being lots of evidence existing in the public domain,
which is why we know those crimes occurred.
"A Russian hacker accused of stealing from Russian banks reportedly confessed in court
that he hacked the U.S. Democratic National Committee (DNC) and stole Hillary Clinton's
emails under the direction of agents from Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB)"
PUTIN ORDERED THEFT OF CLINTON'S EMAILS FROM DNC, RUSSIAN HACKER CONFESSES
BY CRISTINA MAZA ON 12/12/17
in which she stated that not only did Putin 'annex Crimea' but also invaded Ukraine,
among other things. None of her statements were backed up by any facts, which
apparently are irrelevant anymore. Wikipedia has an interesting bio on her.
Bob Van Noy , December 14, 2017 at 9:57 am
Thank you irina for that "catch". I'm a long time reader of "The Atlantic Magazine" well
aware of its long, liberal history and was surprised to find David Frum reporting there.
David was a speech writer for W. Bush and apparently came up with the infamous "Axis of Evil"
tag for President Bush's State Of The Union speech. I'll link the Wikipedia page below for
those interested. I'm concerned that propaganda has spread far and wide
Despite its extremely conclusive title and substance, the Newsweek article later admits
the extremely suspect nature of the accusation, and the lack of any evidence whatsoever:
"Andrei Soldatov an expert on Russian cybersecurity, said he believes Kozlovsky invented
the story about his direction from the FSB for personal gain. 'I've been communicating with
[Kozlovsky] for four months, and he has failed to give me any proof or answer my questions,"
Soldatov told Newsweek .'He was put in jail by these guys so it could be out of revenge, or
he wanted to make a deal with the FSB,'"
Such a reversal of evidence and conclusion bespeaks deliberate deception. The motive is
unclear, as the failed Newsweek is said to have been revived in 2013 by a Korean-American
Christian fundamentalist David Jang formerly of Moon's Unification Church, whose followers
consider him the Second Coming of JC, according to the linked source. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/
Perhaps another quasi-religious CIA front like Fethullah Gulen's madrassas in Turkey and
across central Asia.
exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:13 pm
They keep publishing the same horseshit just like Pravda did in the Soviet era and just
like the Voelkischer Beobachter and Stuermer did during the Nazi era. I guess the uninformed
hoi polloi get so used to it in these situations that they accept the situation, like ducks
and frogs accept watery ponds as their environments.
Manfred Whimplebottem , December 14, 2017 at 9:20 pm
I think I heard a similar story from newsweek months ago, looks like someone took the
deal(?).
FBI Probe Into Clinton Emails Prompted Offer of Cash, Citizenship for Confession, Russian
Hacker Claims
"On October 5, 2016, days before U.S. intelligence publicly accused Russia of endorsing an
infiltration of Democratic Party officials' emails, Nikulin was arrested in Prague at the
request of the U.S. on separate hacking charges. Now, Nikulin claims U.S. authorities tried
to pin the email scandal on him."
"ikulin's lawyer, Martin Sadilek, [claims] that the FBI visited him at least a couple of
times, offering to drop the charges and grant him U.S. citizenship as well as cash and an
apartment in the U.S. if the Russian national confessed to participating in the 2016 hacks of
Clinton campaign chief John Podesta's emails in July."
"[They told me:] you will have to confess to breaking into Clinton's inbox for [U.S.
President Donald Trump] on behalf of [Russian President Vladimir Putin]," Nikulin wrote"
At that time, it wasn't known why Mr. Strzok was transferred/whatever from
counter-intelligence, but since then it has been revealed that Mr. Mueller did so for his (
Strzok) political opinions. That would seem a fair thing to do. What's the problem? Might be
right-wing fear.
Marko , December 14, 2017 at 4:43 am
" What's the problem? "
C'mon , man. Given Strzok's position and his influence on Russiagate AND the earlier
Hillarygate investigations , the fact that he was transferred in July is of little comfort.
Any damage he could do he'd already done by then. Jim Jordan will explain it to you , in six minutes :
exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:16 pm
The problem is that when that story first appeared, nothing else was disclosed. The
damning material took months to emerge, as did Strzok's links to the Clinton coverups and the
links to the fake dossier and the FBI's "anti-Trump" insurance policy. Those who want to
believe the regime's falsehoods can always come up with rationales such as "I guess the
government people know best" which was typical of the answers to sceptics against the Viet
Nam war in the mid '60s.
Realist , December 14, 2017 at 2:43 am
It's been a year and a half since Hillary Clinton first accused Donald Trump of being a
Putin puppet and in collusion with the Kremlin. Any fool should be able to understand that if
there existed any real evidence to support this accusation the world would have seen it under
banner headlines long ago. Instead, we get nothing but one set of sensational fake headlines
unsupported by any actual facts time and again, all in an attempt to fool the
mentally-challenged public. Yet the NYT and the rest of the yellow press continue to insist
that the evidence continues to mount against Trump. What a laugh. Moreover, these deceivers
are the people that want what they define as "fake news" to be systematically rooted out and
stricken from the public record so no thinking person can ever see it. And, they tell us this
is a free and democratic country. Got any more jokes?
Homina , December 14, 2017 at 3:48 am
Totally agree. And it reminds me of some reality "quest" shows about finding Bigfoot or
the Oak Island treasure, etc.
If those were actually found, it would be reported a day or two later, unless every single
one of the producers, actors, workers, etc. were under an NDA enough to wait until some
season finale a year or two later. Ridiculous. If Bigfoot exists that will come to us on
news, and big news, international. It won't come on a 4th season of some Bigfoot-finding
show.
So yeah, season two of the Trump-Russia whatever.
Maddow/MSNBC and the likes have gone utterly insane. Bigfoot behind every door. Scant or
zero facts, who cares. This isn't like Benghazi or White Water or Bush's air service this is
24/7 inane terrible journalism from nearly every journalist publisher in the US.
exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:30 am
I think that the new evidence discussed provides Trump the cover to pull the plug on the
whole Mueller operation despite the Alabama debacle. Sure the media talkers would compare it
to the Saturday Night Massacre, but the proven falsity of the whole absurd circus renders
risible such comparisons. While I don't expect much out of Trump, the championing of this
absurd theory by the mainstream democrats renders them an existential threat to civilization
itself based on the fact that enmity with Russia seems to be their be-all and end-all. It is
all not only criminal but profoundly stupid.
Homina , December 14, 2017 at 3:40 am
"The primary purpose of Mr. Mueller's investigation is not to take down Mr. Trump. It's to
protect America's national security and the integrity of its elections by determining whether
a presidential campaign conspired with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election
– a proposition that grows more plausible every day."
1. How is Russia an "adversary"? And even if Russia is, that's weasel-words and
subjective. Is Turkey a foreign adversary? Is Israel? China? Mexico?
2. Why wasn't there decades ago a special Election Panel looking into foreign influence? I
guess it just started to happen in this last election though .Only with Putin!
3. "more plausible" .this fucking idiot. After a year of headlines of "this is what will
finally take down Trump" and such, all with zero reasons, zero facts .Is naught more
plausible than naught?
4. I detest Trump. I more detest hypocrites and idiots.
But sure, "blah blah more possible take trump down" says some idiot or collective NYT
idiocy. Bore me more your next op-ed, you partisan morons.
Sam F , December 14, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Yes, the NYT is mere propaganda. We already know that "a presidential campaign conspired
with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election" because Clinton's top ten donors
were all Zionists, and she supported all wars for Israel.
Rich Monahan , December 14, 2017 at 3:57 am
Thank you for your spot-on analysis! The motives of the deep state – including FBI
operatives, NY Times and WAPO – is crystal clear. They do not want Trump to be
president, and are determined to either remove him or handcuff him indefinitely. But why? Why
has the establishment gone crazy? Is it simply political, or something deeper and darker?
Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 8:59 am
The real "deep" reason is the PNAC plot to make sure that the USA remains the sole super
power that can impose its will anywhere in the world. Trump's campaign position of seeking
detente with Russia would have led us into a multi-polar world giving Russia a sphere of
influence. That is unacceptable to the empire.
RussiaGate is an attempt to remove Trump from
power, or at a minimum make it impossible for him to seek detente. I am no Trump apologist,
but I do think our only hope for a future in this nuclear age is to seek peace and
cooperation in a multi-polar world that respects national sovereignty and the rule of law. I
suspect Trump will continue to be brought to heel, with or without the success of RussiaGate.
And there is always the JFK solution as a last resort.
M C Martin , December 14, 2017 at 6:08 am
Where is William Binney's "Thin String" signals intelligence (SIGINT) software when it's
needed? Wouldn't it be lovely to focus it on the communications of our own government? Binney
says applying it after 9/11 to the pre-9/11 communications streams did successfully predict
the 9/11 attacks. If only we had stored all communications of government officials dating
back to . hey, let's say 1774 or so, what truths might we now know, and what proofs might we
now have? What would FDR's communications prior to Pearl Harbor reveal? What about the JFK,
Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X assassinations?
While I can't endorse our government's illegal and immoral collection and storing of
virtually all communications among people, if the store is there and is used against petty
criminals, why couldn't or shouldn't it be used to detect and prove the illegal acts of our
government power brokers?
If "our plan" exist, then Michael Morell should be persecuted.
Notable quotes:
"... Politico's interview with a somewhat repentant Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled with a discovery of FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital? Just say'n. ..."
"... Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_76241.shtml ..."
Philip Giraldi writes about a shift occurring over at the CIA in Trump's favor, Politico's interview with a somewhat repentant
Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled
with a discovery of FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital? Just say'n.
Anna , December 14, 2017 at 1:11 am
"You all keep hating on Democracy."
-- Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director
of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton:
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_76241.shtml
Your "democracy" was nowhere when Mr. Clinton had been molesting underage girls on Lolita express. Your "democracy on the march,"
Clinton-Kagan style, has destroyed Libya and Ukraine. Millions of innocent civilians of all ages (including an enormous number
of children) died thanks to your Israel-first & oil-first Clinton & Obama policies.
Very democratic ("We came, we saw, he died ha, ha, ha" – and the gem of Northern Africa has become a hell for Libyan citizens).
One does not need to be Trump apologist to sense the stench of your rotten Clinton-Obama-CIA-FBI "democracy."
Fox reporter Shannon Brem tweeted that Fox News producer Jake Gibson has obtained 10k texts
between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, one of which says "Trump should go f himself," and "F
TRUMP."
... ... ...
In another tweet posted by Bream, Peter Strzok says "I am riled up. Trump is
a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherrent answer ," and "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE
F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!"
Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."
... ... ...
In another tweet posted by Bream, Peter Strzok says "I am riled up. Trump is
a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherrent answer ," and "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE
F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!"
Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."
... ... ...
The messages between Strzok and Page make it abundantly clear that the agents investigating
both candidates for President were extremely biased against then-candidate Trump, while going
extremely easy on Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.
... ... ...
The messages sent between Strzok and Page, as well as Strzok's conduct in the
Clinton investigation and several prior cases are now under review for political bias by the
Justice Department . Furthermore, the fact that the reason behind Strzok's firing was kept a
secret for months is of keen interest to House investigators. According to
Fox News two weeks ago :
"While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the
Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators."
"Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now
directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI
director, Christopher Wray." -Fox News
Strzok also relied on the Trump-Russia dossier created by opposition research firm Fusion
GPS. In August, 2016 - nine months before Robert Mueller's Special Counsel was launched, the
New York Times reported that Strzok was hand picked by FBI brass to supervise an investigation
into allegations of Trump-Russia collusion . The FBI investigation grew legs after they
received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and decided to act on its salacious and largely
unproven claims, According to
Fox News
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the
project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. - Fox
News
Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed to pay former MI6 agent and
Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could verify the claims contained within
the dossier - which relied on the cooperation of two senior Kremlin officials.
... ... ...
When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI wouldn't
pay him according to the New York Times .
Mr. Steele met his F.B.I. contact in Rome in early October, bringing a stack of new
intelligence reports. One, dated Sept. 14, said that Mr. Putin was facing "fallout" over his
apparent involvement in the D.N.C. hack and was receiving "conflicting advice" on what to
do.
The agent said that, if Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the
F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 for his efforts, according to two people familiar with the
offer. Ultimately, he was not paid . - NYT
Did you catch that? Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier,
Peter Strzok used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team
. Steele was ultimately paid
$168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier.
There's more - according to journalist Sara Carter there are more anti-Trump messages
exchanged between other members of Mueller's team
Sean Hannity: I'm hearing rumors all over the place Sara Carter that there are other
anti-Trump text-emails out there. And we know about them.
Sara Carter: I think you're hearing correctly Sean and I think a lot more is going to come
out. In fact, I know a lot more is going to come out based on the sources I've spoken to.
... ... ...
The text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are highly compromising , and prove
that both FBI investigations into Clinton and Trump were headed by a man, aided by his
mistress, who did not want to see Trump win the White House. Furthermnore, if anti-Trump text
messages were exchanged between other members of Robert Mueller's special counsel, which are
apparently on deck for later this month or January, it's hard to imagine anyone taking anything
concluded by this dog-and-pony show seriously.
So let's see here, I'm looking for the parts about the FBI?/special investigation, or even
anything relevant to the subject matter in your post Jack. Nope nothing there except a
speculation about something that has long since passed and with no real way to determine
actual facts. But hey thanks for taking up all the unused space here on the forum.
Back to revelant speculation...
Melissa Hodgman is the wife of the FBI scum. Guess what she does? She is head of the SEC
enforcement division. I guess that's where 'ol Pete learned how to turn "grossly negligent"
into "extremely careless". I guess that's good enough for the SEC so it should be good enough
for the Effing Bee Eye.
funny how two libtards who are cheating on their partners, can have the audacity to
believe theyre the intelligent ones. Lost, hollow, carcases of human beings they are.
You can not be serious. A FBI investigator can't let any bias influence their
investigations regardless of their personal feelings one way or the other. This Agent saying
that he was in a position to protect the country from Trump puts his bias on full display. I
expect FBI agents to be all Joe Friday all of the time.
When law enforcement is taking pro-active actions to protect Hillary and insure her
presidency...should anyone be shocked that a 'rat' inside her campaign gets murdered and no
one cares?
Sexual Blackmail rings have been around forever. Every 1st world clandestine intel agency
has long since perfected these types of traps. Starts with basic Honey Traps and goes to kids
and much worse crimes than sexual misconduct (think the Godfather when the Senator was set up
at the Brothel and you get a good idea).
Before someone becomes a dependable tool you need to have them by the balls. It has been
estimated that 1 in 3 politicians in D.C. are comprimised this way at some point during their
career. This is how the CIA controls politicians outside the US. It gets quid pro quo from
other intel agencies for internal control (Mossad, MI6, or other). It's an old game. Epstein
is Mossad. The island is a trap outside of U.S. Why would alan dershowitz go there? Simple he
was lured and trapped. Think about it, if you are in this dirty business, how do get a good
Lawyer? Good lawyers who are 'committed' to your cause always come in handy.
This is how real power is and has been aquired. With power comes control.
They're "going all in." Doesn't matter what Hand the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous
Seditious Psychopaths at the Deep State & their cohorts have been dealt.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted
False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections / Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full
retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
The misconception is that individuals believe we are dealing with normal, sane human
beings. We're not. Far from it. What we are dealing with are sick, twisted, Pure Evil
Criminal, Psychopathic, Satanic / Lucerferian elements from the CIA / Pentagram Temple of Set
Scum literally making Hell on Earth.
What's at Stake is the Deep State Global network of MultiNational Central Banking,
Espionage, Murder, War, Torture, Destabilization Campaigns, BlackMail, Extortion, Child /
Human Trafficking, Drug / Gun Running, Money Laundering, Corruption, NSA spying, Media
control & control of the 17 Intelligence Agencies.
Most importantly, The Deep State controls all the distribution lines of the
aforementioned. Especially the Coaxial Cable Communication lines of Espionage spying &
Surveillance State Apparatus / Infrastructure.
Agencies all built on the British Model of Intelligence. Purely Evil & Highly
Compartmentalized Levels which function as a Step Pyramid Model of Authority / Monarch Reign
Pyramid Model of Authority.
That's what's at Stake. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The Pure Evil Criminal
Psychopath Rogue elements of the Deep State will not go quietly. If not dealt with now,
they'll disappear only to resurface at a later date with one objective:
Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination they seek through Power & Control.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep
State Top that have had control since the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for
decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
This impure evil has been running the world since the time of the Pharoahs, it's ancient
Babylonian mysticism/paganism and it is nothing more than the worship of Lucifer; it has
never died out, it just re-emerges as something far more wicked, vile and sinister. They are
all the sons and daughters of satan and do what he does - kill, steal and destroy.
It would be Nieve to think that hundreds of thousands of years of control over mankind be
simply turned over by the Criminal Pure Evil Psychopathic Elite.
The Deep State will always exist.
However, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopathic Highly Compartmentalized Rogue Levels of it
are being delt with. Which is what the World is witnessing.
"President Trump needs to do mass firings at the corrupt FBI/DOJ"
Firings? Firings are for Starbucks employees who dip into the cash register. When people
afforded this level of "trust" and responsibility show how deeply corrupt they are - in that
they openly aid and abet horrific criminals (HRC et al) they need to go to JAIL. FOREVER. And
their supervisors - who goddamn well knew what the fuck they were doing - need to be their
cellmates.
The FBI and DOJ have lost ALL integrity, honor, and moral authority. At this point, if I
saw an FBI agent on fire, I wouldn't piss on him to put him out.
"... More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections. ..."
"... What is he going to prison for, again? Colluding with Israel? ..."
"... The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate. Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the tax changes good for the rich against the many. I think the people are being played. ..."
"... In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars. ..."
"... True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated. ..."
"... Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys. How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces. ..."
"... Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us". ..."
"... If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during the transition period, he's got nothing. ..."
"... It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend, Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup. So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation. ..."
"... The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ... ..."
"... Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its 'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US intelligence community. ..."
"... Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its 800 overseas bases are to defend US interests. ..."
"... Wow this is like becoming McCarthy Era 2.0. I'm just waiting for the show trials of all these so-called colluders. ..."
"... the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of an incoming official ..."
"... "The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality. But not charging Hillary for email server. Another technicality. That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI and the Dems" ..."
"... It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this unashamed scale in ancient Rome? ..."
"... So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops. How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn flipped? Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's. ..."
"... You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on ..."
"... Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts. ..."
"... If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for "collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ..."
"... Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount to global belligerence. ..."
"... Clinton lied under oath ..."
"... The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used... plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office... ..."
"... Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries. Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more decisive? ..."
"... The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese? ..."
"... The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council. ..."
"... And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect. What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements. The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics. ..."
"... In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal - but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it. ..."
"... All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed. Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December, after the election. ..."
"... So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't get your hopes up that this is going anywhere ..."
"... Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference. ..."
"... America like all governments are narcissistic, they will cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to see how it works. ..."
"... The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that ..."
"... Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia, ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them as a threat. ..."
Mueller will have to thread very carefully because he is maneuvering on a very politically
charged terrain. And one cannot refrain from comparing the current situation with the many
free passes the democrats were handed over by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the
media which make the US look like a banana republic.
The mind blowing fact that Clinton sat
with the Attorney General on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport "to chit-chat" and not to
discuss the investigation on Clinton's very wife that was being overseen by the same AG,
leaves one flabbergasted.
And the fact that Comey essentially said that Clinton's behaviour,
tantamount in his own words to extreme recklessness, did not warrant prosecution was just
inconceivable.
Don't forget that Trump has nearly 50 M gun-toting followers on Tweeter and
that he would not hesitate to appeal to them were he to feel threatened by what he could
conceive as a judicial Coup d'Etat. The respect for the institutions in the USA has never
been so low.
...a judge would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant a trial.
Actually, in the U.S. a grand jury would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant
formal charges leading to a trial. There is also the possibility that Mueller has uncovered
both Federal and NY State offenses, so charges could be brought against Kushner at either
level. Mueller has been sharing information from his investigation with the NY Attorney
General's Office. Trump could pardon a federal offense, but has no jurisdiction to pardon
charges brought against Kushner by the State of NY.
I watched RT for 24 months before the US election. They favoured Bernie Saunders strongly
before he lost to Hilary. Then they ran hustings for the smaller US parties, eg Greens, and
the Libertarians , which could definitely be seen as an interference in the US election, but
which as far as I know, was never mentioned in the US. They were anti Hilary but not pro
Trump. And indeed, their strong anti capitalist bias would have made such support unlikely.
What's he lying about? More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his
legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections.
Obama and Hillary met hundreds of foreign officials. Were they colluding as well?
The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate.
Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the
tax changes good for the rich against the many.
I think the people are being played.
In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively
bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the
anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current
President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has
taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars.
It's all too funny.
True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for
now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily
formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and
resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it
is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated.
Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths
are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since
WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys.
How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured
status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is
lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned
by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces.
Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly
zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha
ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's
descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump
as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of
us".
I missed Jill Abramson's column about all the meetings the Obama administration held -- quite
openly -- with foreign governments during the transition period between his election and his
first inauguration.
But since she's been demonstrably and laughably wrong about predicting future political
events in the USA (see her entire body of work during the 2016 election campaign), why should
she start making sense now?
It's completely possible, of course, that some as-yet-to-be-revealed piece of evidence
will prove collusion -- before the election and by candidate Trump -- with the
Russians. But the Flynn testimony certainly isn't it. All the heavy breathing and hysteria is
simply a sign of how the media, yet again, always gravitates toward the news it wishes were
true, rather than what really is true. If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during
the transition period, he's got nothing.
Flynn was charged with far more serious crimes which were all dropped and he was left with a
charge that if he spends any time in prison, it will be about 6 months. Now, you could say
for him to agree to that, he must have some juicy info - and he probably does - but what that
juicy info is is just speculation. And if we are speculating, then maybe what he traded it
for was nothing to do with Trump? After all, one of the charges against him was failing to
register as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkey.
It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to
extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend,
Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup.
So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence
him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for
his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation.
Still no evidence of Russian collusion in Trump campaign BEFORE the election...... whatever
happened after being president elect is not impeachable unless it would be after taking
office.
The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared
the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ...
Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its
'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US
intelligence community.
Trumps presidency could have the capability of galvanising a powerful resistance against
the 2 party state for 'real change, like affordable healthcare and affordable education for
ALL its people. But no its not happening, Trump is attacked on probables and undisclosed
sources. A year has passed and nothing has been revealed.
Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a
democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is
owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its
800 overseas bases are to defend US interests.
Well their not, their only function is, is to spend tax dollars that otherwise would be
spent on education, health, infrastructure, things that would 'really' benefit America.
Disagree, well go ahead and accuse me of being a conspiracy nut-job, in the meantime China is
by peaceful means getting the mining rights in Africa, Australia, deals that matter.
The tax legislation for the few against the many is deflected by the anti-Trump hysteria
based on conjecture and not proof.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Your mask is slipping, Vlad .
Your ignorance is showing.
I have no connection to Russia what so ever.
Crimea was legally ceded to Russia over 200 years ago, by the Ottomans to Catherine the
Great.
Russia has never relinquished control.
What the criminal organization the USSR did under Ukrainian expat Khrushchev, is
irrelevant.
And as Putin said , any agreement about respecting Ukraine's territorial integrity was
negated when the USA and the EU fomented and financed a rebellion and revolution.
Australia, Canada, and S. Africa supply the lion's share of gold bullion that London survives
on. And the best uranium in the world. All sorts of other precious commodities as well.
If you're not toeing the line on US foreign policies religiously, the Yanks will drop you.
You are selectively choosing to refer to this one instance, but even here Obama
administration were still in charge - so not very legal, was it.
I am "selectively choosing to refer to this one instance" because that's all Flynn has
been charged with. Oh, and it is totally legal for a member of the incoming administration to
start talks with their foreign counterparts. Here's a quote from an op-ed piece in The Hill
from a law professor at Washington University.
the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new
administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to
raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to
seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of
administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait
as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of
an incoming official .
"The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality.
But not charging Hillary for email server.
Another technicality.
That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI
and the Dems"
It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this
unashamed scale in ancient Rome?
He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN
security council.
So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops.
How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn
flipped?
Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's.
You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition
war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by
supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on
Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it
is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you
love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer
screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts.
Oh, and I have to be supporter of Putin's oligarchy with dreams of great tsars of Russia,
if I care about humans survival on this planet and have very bad opinion about suicidal fools
playing this stupid games.
If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert
Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for
"collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a
congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to
be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount
to global belligerence.
The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used...
plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk
deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office...
I am not sure any level of scandal will make much difference to Trump or his supporters.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing will
have an impact.
So far the level of scandal is below that of Whitewater/Lewinsky, and that was a very low
level indeed. What "evidence of wrongdoing" is there? Nothing, that's why they charged Flynn
with lying to investigators. It's important to keep in mind that the he did nor lie about
actual crimes. Perhaps that's going to change as the investigation proceeds, but so far this
is nothing more than a partisan lawfare fishing expedition.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? As for countries trying to influence elections in other countries, I'm all for it
particularly when one of the candidates is murderous, arrogant and stupid.
BTW, in Honduras after supporting a coup against the democratically-elected president
because he sought a referendum on allowing presidents to serve two terms, you'd think the
United States would interfere when his non-democratically-elected replacement used a "packed"
supreme court to change the constitution to allow presidents to serve more than one term to
at least stop him stealing an election as he is now doing/has done. But they didn't and that
hasn't stopped the United States whining that Evo Morales is being undemocratic by trying to
extend the number of terms he can serve.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you
set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook
ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries.
Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American
politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more
decisive?
The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia
tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more
actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration
weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained
anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese?
The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then
pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security
council.
And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect.
What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to
undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements.
The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics.
Can someone please actually tell us what Flynn/Jared/Trump is supposed to have done.
In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National
Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming
special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding
sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and
is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he
had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal
- but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being
charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it.
These days "US influence" seems to consist of bombing Middle Eastern countries back to the
bronze age for reasons that defy easy logic.
Anything that reduces that kind of influence would be welcome.
The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime
for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States.
Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the
United States without authorization. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Logan+Act
All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed.
Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not
registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for
Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even
though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the
President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December,
after the election.
So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump
campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's
campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before
working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of
which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't
get your hopes up that this is going anywhere.
Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other
countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where
were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are
completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference.
But now this Russian debacle, and at last they've woken up, because another country had the
temerity to turn the tables on them. And I think if this was Bush or Obama we would never
have heard a thing about it. Everybody hates the Dotard, because he's an obese dick with an
IQ to match.
Nothing will happen to Trump, It's all bollocks. You've all watched too many Spielberg films,
bad guys win, and they win most of the time.
Trump is the real face of America, America like all governments are narcissistic, they will
cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one
on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to
see how it works.
when American presidents were rational, well balanced with progressive views we had....
decent American healthcare? Equality of opportunity? Gun laws that made it safe to
walk the streets?
Say who, what an a where now????????? Since when has the US EVER had any of
the three things that you mentioned???
If ever, then it was a loooooong time before the pilgrim fathers ever landed.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
That is the bottom line, yes. People view the world through west = good and Russia = bad,
while both make economic and political decisions that serve the interests of their people
respectively. Ultimately, I think people are scared that the West's monopoly on global
influence is slipping, to as you said, a rival.
You are right that calling Russia the US enemy needs justification, but these threads often
deteriorate into arguments of the yes it is/no it isn't variety.
Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I
read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia,
ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them
as a threat.
It's certain that their ideals and goals run counter to those generally held in the US in
many ways. But let's not forget that the US' ideals are often, if not generally, divergent
from their interests and US foreign policy since 1945 has been responsible for countless
deaths, perhaps more than Russia's.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
How the liberals and the Democrats don't give a damm about the USA or the world's political
scene, just some endless 'sore loser' witch hunt.
So much could be achieved by the improving of relations with Russia.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Let Trump have a go as POTUS and then judge him.
He wants to befriend Putin and if done it would help solve Syrian, Nth Korean and other
global problems.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing
will have an impact
Whereas if it's a Democrat in the spotlight, these same dipshits see it as an
élitist cover-up and no lack of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact. If
anything, lack of evidence is evidence of cover-up which is therefore proof of evidence.
These cynical games they play with veracity and human honesty are a very pure form of
evil.
Looks like pressure from the "intelligence community" was the decisive factor in appointment of the special prosecutor.
Notable quotes:
"... In an impossible position, the deputy attorney general played the only card he had. But the game between the White House and the Justice Department and intelligence community will only get more complicated. ..."
"... Late Wednesday afternoon, Rosenstein suddenly announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, former F.B.I. director Robert S. Mueller III, to take charge of the investigation into Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. ..."
"... It's probably not coincidental that the latest twist came less than 24 hours before Rosenstein is scheduled to brief a meeting of all 100 U.S senators in a secure room of the subterranean Capitol Visitors Center. He will still be quizzed Thursday afternoon. The Democrats, led by New York's Chuck Schumer, will ask about the roles of President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the abrupt dismissal of Comey. Did Rosenstein tailor his case, which focused entirely on the F.B.I. director's handling of the 2016 probe into Hillary Clinton's e-mail habits, at the behest of the president and the A.G.? ..."
"... The appointment of a special counsel makes it easier for Rosenstein to deflect those questions. The 52-year-old has spent 27 years as a government lawyer. Hired straight out of Harvard, in 1990, to work in President George H.W. Bush's Justice Department, Rosenstein stayed on into President Bill Clinton's term. In 2005, President George W. Bush nominated him to be U.S. attorney for Maryland, a job Rosenstein held for 12 years, making him the only U.S. attorney appointed under the previous regime to last through both of President Barack Obama's terms -- which means he's either highly competent or blandly unexceptional. ..."
"... In January, Sessions, himself a former U.S. attorney, chose Rosenstein as his top deputy. ..."
"... The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested that Justice turn over any memos written by Comey about his conversations with Trump, including the now-famous notes, first reported in The New York Times, where Comey says the president asked him to drop the F.B.I. inquiry into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. Sessions -- in consultation with Rosenstein -- could refuse the Senate's request, forcing a subpoena and a possible constitutional confrontation. ..."
"... turmoil inside U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies is also having ramifications in external, more corrosive ways ..."
In an impossible position, the deputy attorney general played the only card he had. But the game between the White House and the
Justice Department and intelligence community will only get more complicated.
You remember Rod Rosenstein. Way back on May 9, Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, was thrust from bureaucratic obscurity
when the White House cited his three-page memo as the basis for the firing of F.B.I. director James Comey.
Rosenstein, after a day or so, then receded from the headlines, thanks to the cyclonic chaos machine that is the Trump administration:
Oval Office leaks to the Russians! Israeli spies! Angry tweets! But the bespectacled, seemingly mild-mannered lawyer just got very
interesting again.
Late Wednesday afternoon, Rosenstein suddenly announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, former F.B.I. director Robert
S. Mueller III, to take charge of the investigation into Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
It was a stunning reversal for Rosenstein, who for weeks had been fending off congressional calls for just such a move. It was
also -- if the details are true -- a stunning vote of no-confidence in President Donald Trump : Department of Justice sources say
the White House was given only 30-minutes notice before the public announcement, and that Rosenstein had already signed the order
at that point. It may also be a sign of Rosenstein's anger at being bullied by Trump last week -- when the White House, amid the
uproar over Comey's firing, tried to pin the blame on Rosenstein.
There were also pragmatic procedural reasons. "President Trump basically forced a special counsel to be appointed the minute he
made Rosenstein a witness to Comey's firing -- by saying that he'd accepted the recommendation of Rosenstein to fire Comey," says
Duncan Levin, a former federal prosecutor. "Trump disqualified Rosenstein as an impartial prosecutor and made this appointment all
but inevitable."
It's probably not coincidental that the latest twist came less than 24 hours before Rosenstein is scheduled to brief a meeting
of all 100 U.S senators in a secure room of the subterranean Capitol Visitors Center. He will still be quizzed Thursday afternoon.
The Democrats, led by New York's Chuck Schumer, will ask about the roles of President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in
the abrupt dismissal of Comey. Did Rosenstein tailor his case, which focused entirely on the F.B.I. director's handling of the 2016
probe into Hillary Clinton's e-mail habits, at the behest of the president and the A.G.?
Rosenstein will also be grilled about the underlying mess: Was the president trying to slow down or scuttle the Russia inquiry
by firing the F.B.I. director? "We are very curious about that," a Senate source says.
The appointment of a special counsel makes it easier for Rosenstein to deflect those questions. The 52-year-old has spent 27 years
as a government lawyer. Hired straight out of Harvard, in 1990, to work in President George H.W. Bush's Justice Department, Rosenstein
stayed on into President Bill Clinton's term. In 2005, President
George W. Bush nominated him to
be U.S. attorney for Maryland, a job Rosenstein held for 12 years, making him the only U.S. attorney appointed under the previous
regime to last through both of President Barack Obama's terms -- which means he's either highly competent or blandly unexceptional.
In January, Sessions, himself a former U.S. attorney, chose Rosenstein as his top deputy.
"A lot of people, like me, who were really troubled by the Sessions appointment as attorney general thought Rod would be the person
who would stand up for D.O.J.'s independence in a pinch," says Matthew Miller, who was Attorney General Eric Holder's spokesman.
"And that did not prove to be the case last week. Rod wrote that memo, and it was a farce. It was a cover story so Trump could fire
Comey over the Russia investigation. That was the moment for Rod to stand up and say no, and not only did he not do that, he helped
load the gun for Trump."
The truth could be more complex, of course: Rosenstein may have genuinely believed Comey should be fired, and he also may have
been an unwitting tool for Trump and Sessions. Appointing a special counsel "is an admission by Rosenstein that he messed up badly
last week," Miller says. "He still needs to explain himself to Congress."
Attorneys on both sides of the political aisle who know Rosenstein don't question his impartiality when it comes to evaluating
facts and legal issues. They wonder, however, whether Rosenstein has been out of his political depth as deputy attorney general --
and whether he wrote the Comey memo without sufficient concern as to how it might be used. "The skills needed to be an effective
U.S. attorney are significantly different from the ones needed as deputy attorney general," one D.O.J. veteran says. "Being a straight
shooter is great, but you have a lot of other considerations in those top leadership positions."
Even with Mueller now overseeing the Russia investigation, Rosenstein's impact should be felt on two other crucial fronts.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested that Justice turn over any memos written by Comey about his conversations with
Trump, including the now-famous notes, first reported in The New York Times, where Comey says the president asked him to
drop the F.B.I. inquiry into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. Sessions -- in consultation with Rosenstein --
could refuse the Senate's request, forcing a subpoena and a possible constitutional confrontation.
Then there's the larger, murkier subject of leaks. After Trump apparently blabbed confidential, Israeli-developed intelligence
about the fight against ISIS to the Russians, conservative media outlets have been loudly calling for whoever tipped reporters to
the story be hunted down. As Maryland U.S. attorney, Rosenstein's highest-profile case was the prosecution of James "Hoss" Cartwright,
a retired four-star Marine general and a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Cartwright was accused of disclosing
information about covert anti-Iranian operations to reporters; he was charged with lying about his conversations to F.B.I. investigators.
Rosenstein extracted a guilty plea from Cartwright and pushed for a two-year jail term.
Trump apparently told Comey he wanted reporters who'd received leaks locked up. And now the White House and Sessions are prioritizing
the pursuit of leakers. "It's almost as if people think they have a right to violate the law, and this has got to end, and probably
it will take some convictions to put an end to it," Sessions told Bill O'Reilly on Fox in March. Rosenstein, who is in charge of
the Justice Department's day-to-day operations, may be the one tasked with implementing a crackdown.
But the Trump-inflicted turmoil inside U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies is also having ramifications in external,
more corrosive ways. "What happened with the president and the Russians the other day makes counterterrorism work even more difficult,"
says Ali Soufan, a former F.B.I. agent who pursued the 9/11 attackers and now runs an international security firm.
"Early on, the
Israeli intelligence and military establishment warned the government about sharing intelligence with the White House for fear that
Trump would share it with the Russians, and that the Russians will share it with the Iranians. And then we've proved them right.
What I hear from people around the world, and from people who work for the U.S. overseas, is that the situation is chaotic. It's
becoming increasingly difficult for people in nati
If I had a dollar for every time I heard the words "special prosecutor" over the past week, I would have enough money to qualify
for a
cabinet position in the Trump Administration. Various Democratic
senators have been calling
for a special prosecutor whenever they can get close enough to a microphone. Last week, a number of state attorneys general
wrote
a joint letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein urging him to appoint an independent special prosecutor. The New York
Times Editorial Board
joined
the chorus a few days ago.
The idea of appointing a special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation is not new. In March, a public opinion
poll suggested
that two-thirds of Americans supported the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was before Comey was fired, and before the
competing excuses for firing him that came from the White House and President Trump himself.
A few months ago, I
predicted that Trump might fire Comey. (I'm not happy I was right, and the writing on the wall was clear enough for anyone who
cared to look.) I thought back then that the only way to move forward with a credible investigation into Russia's involvement with
the last election would be to appoint a special counsel. What was a good idea then is a necessity now. It's not just because Trump
pulled the trigger on firing Comey. Although it's unusual, it's not illegal for a President
to fire an FBI Director. A President
can hire and fire executive branch officials as he sees fit. Read More
close dialog
close dialog And that's the problem. Trump can remove anyone and everyone holding a top position at
the Justice Department who may be involved in this investigation. Clearly, he's not been shy about sacking Justice Department officials.
Just ask Sally Yates
and Preet Bahrara , or the other 46 US Attorneys who were told to vacate their offices before sundown earlier this year. Views
on Comey's firing
Let's imagine for a minute that the people in charge decided that appointing a special prosecutor was the right thing to do.
This is how it would work . The attorney general (or the deputy attorney general in a case like this one, where the attorney
general recuses himself) has the discretion to appoint a "special counsel" when: (1) a criminal investigation is warranted; (2) there
is a potential conflict of interest if the Justice Department conducted the investigation, or there are "extraordinary circumstances"
present; and (3) it would be in the public interest to appoint a special counsel. The decision by the deputy attorney general to
appoint (or not appoint) a special counsel is not be reviewable.
Although political and public pressure can certainly influence the decision, it's entirely up to Rosenstein to do it or not. I
know that, according to sources cited by CNN,
Rosenstein doesn't
see the need for a special counsel at this point. He's wrong. It doesn't really matter if there is nothing to the allegations
of Russia's meddling in the election or collusion with the Trump team. At this point, there is so much distrust and skepticism about
the process itself that there needs to be an independent prosecutor looking into these allegations just to assure the country that
the President and his associates did not commit a crime. Rosenstein shouldn't get any friction from his boss.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has publicly
recused himself from any investigation dealing with Russian meddling, and Sessions
had no problem with the
idea of a special prosecutor when the potential target was Hillary Clinton. I recognize that there are legitimate arguments against
the appointment of a special counsel. The process can be expensive, lack clear direction, last for a year or more, and is not guaranteed
to reach any meaningful conclusions. But the benefits of appointing a special counsel in this case greatly outweigh the potential
downsides. Although no one has asked me (and no one probably will), I know just the person for the job: Larry Thompson, a former
deputy attorney general and former US attorney in Republican administrations.
He has extensive private sector experience, and is currently trusted by a federal court to oversee Volkswagen's compliance with
criminal sanctions related to its emissions scandal. He is a loyal Republican and
a supporter of Sessions , so the GOP couldn't credibly claim he's politically biased. More importantly, he's well-respected,
extremely competent, and experienced in complex criminal investigations.
Whether it's Larry Thompson or someone else, a special prosecutor should be appointed to take over this investigation. If Rosenstein
is the man everyone
says he is ,
I believe he will appoint a qualified, independent prosecutor to take over this mess of an investigation. Mr. Rosenstein, the ball
is in your court. Don't let America down.
"... At his Senate confirmation hearing March 7, Rosenstein refused to say whether he would be willing to bring in a special counsel, saying he wouldn't make judgments in advance. ..."
"... Rosenstein has spent 27 years at Justice, getting an early job as a senior aide to a deputy attorney general. As a U.S. attorney, he supervised a broad range of criminal prosecution. ..."
"... In the 1990s, Rosenstein worked on the independent counsel investigation of President Clinton and Hillary Clinton for their investments in a failed real estate company known as Whitewater. ..."
"... Rosenstein was involved in separate questioning of both Clintons, who never were charged with a crime. More than a dozen others were charged and convicted, including the governor of Arkansas. ..."
Atty. Gen.
Jeff Sessions
recused himself from the Russia investigation in March after news reports revealed he had failed to tell his
Senate
confirmation hearing about his meetings last year with Russia's ambassador to the U.S.
Rosenstein, a veteran prosecutor who had been serving as the U.S. attorney for Maryland, was confirmed as the No. 2 by the Senate
the following month.
That put him in charge of the investigation into whether current or former aides to
President Trump
coordinated with Russia during the 2016 campaign.
What is Rosenstein's role in the Russia probe?
It will fall to Rosenstein to decide whether to file criminal charges against any of Trump's aides, to drop the case entirely
or to hand it off to an independent prosecutor.
At his Senate confirmation hearing March 7, Rosenstein refused to say whether he would be willing to bring in a special counsel,
saying he wouldn't make judgments in advance.
But he said he had "no reason to doubt" the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian authorities sought to influence
the presidential race. He also said he believed the
Justice
Department could handle the most politically complicated cases without fear of compromise.
Rosenstein laid out the case for Comey to be removed in a three-page memo that the White House released Tuesday.
In firing Comey, Trump had said he acted on Rosenstein's recommendation.
In a memorandum to Sessions, Rosenstein harshly criticized Comey for actions going back to last July, when he held a news conference
to announce that the FBI would not seek charges against presidential candidate and former Secretary of State
Hillary
Clinton in the email investigation but denounced her conduct.
That was a serious misjudgment, Rosenstein wrote, adding, "The goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our
thoughts at a press conference."
He went on to say that Comey had made the problems worse with his decision to disclose in late October -- 11 days before the election
-- that the FBI had reopened its investigation of Clinton after finding State Department emails on a computer belonging to former
Rep.
Anthony
Weiner , the estranged husband of Clinton's aide
Huma Abedin
.
Reports have since come out that Rosenstein threatened to resign over the way the Comey dismissal was attributed in part to the
memo.
As Sessions' top deputy, Rosenstein is responsible for using Justice Department resources to step up enforcement of immigration
laws, a Trump administration priority.
Sessions already has instructed all U.S. attorney's offices to be more aggressive about filing criminal charges against people
who cross the border illegally, and he has threatened to cut off department grants to so-called sanctuary cities unless they cooperate
with immigration agents.
[Sessions] picked someone who grew up in the department and knows how cases are decided, and should be decided.
-- Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general from 1994-1997
How did he become deputy attorney general?
The Senate voted overwhelmingly last month to confirm Rod J. Rosenstein as the No. 2 official at the Justice Department.
Rosenstein, 52, won unusual bipartisan support on the strength of his crime-fighting efforts as the U.S. attorney for Maryland
for the last 12 years. He was confirmed as deputy attorney general by a vote of 94 to 6.
Where did he get his start?
Rosenstein has spent 27 years at Justice, getting an early job as a senior aide to a deputy attorney general. As a U.S. attorney,
he supervised a broad range of criminal prosecution.
He first was nominated to the post by President George W. Bush. President Obama kept him on after the Senate did not move on Bush's
previous nomination of Rosenstein for a seat on a federal appeals court.
In the 1990s, Rosenstein worked on the independent counsel investigation of President Clinton and Hillary Clinton for their
investments in a failed real estate company known as Whitewater.
Rosenstein was involved in separate questioning of both Clintons, who never were charged with a crime. More than a dozen others
were charged and convicted, including the governor of Arkansas.
Jamie Gorelick, who served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 under the Clinton administration, praised Rosenstein at
a recent ethics conference.
She said the department would remain in experienced hands. Sessions "picked someone who grew up in the department and knows how
cases are decided, and should be decided," she said.
That's what Trump's "bastard neoliberalism" is about. He is not a New Dealer.
Notable quotes:
"... He forgot them on health care. Jettisoning his campaign pledge to "take care of everybody" regardless of income, he proposed cutting federal health subsidies for the hard-pressed blue-collar voters who put him into office. ..."
"... He forgot them on financial regulation. Abandoning talk of cracking down on Wall Street executives who "rigged" the economy to hobble the working class, he seeks to undercut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. ..."
"... And he forgot them on taxes. Discarding his vow to reshape taxation for average families at the expense of rich people like himself, he's working with Republican leaders to hand the biggest benefits to corporations and the wealthy ..."
"... The president hasn't forgotten everything. In lieu of big financial benefits, Trump has steadily given "the forgotten people" at least one visceral commodity [: ] affirmation of shared racial grievances. ..."
"... But on economic issues he has behaved exactly like a standard issue country club republican. The requirement that the GOP enact a "replacement" for Obamacare? Gone. Preventing the offshoring of manufacturing jobs? Gone. Enacting at least something like a tariff at the borders? Gone. Actually *doing* something about the opioid crisis, which is strongly correlated with areas of economic distress (as opposed to lip service)? Nothing. ..."
He forgot them on health care. Jettisoning his campaign pledge to "take care of everybody" regardless of income, he proposed
cutting federal health subsidies for the hard-pressed blue-collar voters who put him into office.
He forgot them on financial regulation. Abandoning talk of cracking down on Wall Street executives who "rigged" the economy
to hobble the working class, he seeks to undercut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
And he forgot them on taxes. Discarding his vow to reshape taxation for average families at the expense of rich people like
himself, he's working with Republican leaders to hand the biggest benefits to corporations and the wealthy.
To the contrary, his budget includes big cuts to Social Security disability program. Meanwhile his much-vaunted infrastructure
plan has 'failed to materialize."
But, Harwood points out:
The president hasn't forgotten everything. In lieu of big financial benefits, Trump has steadily given "the forgotten people"
at least one visceral commodity [: ] affirmation of shared racial grievances.
I think this is a good summary of Trump's domestic policies as revealed by the past year. On social issues, he has governed exactly
as he promised during his campaign, issuing a de facto ban on Muslim immigration, unleashing ICE against Latinos, and fulminating
against protesting black NFL players.
But on economic issues he has behaved exactly like a standard issue country club republican. The requirement that the GOP enact
a "replacement" for Obamacare? Gone. Preventing the offshoring of manufacturing jobs? Gone. Enacting at least something like a tariff
at the borders? Gone. Actually *doing* something about the opioid crisis, which is strongly correlated with areas of economic distress
(as opposed to lip service)? Nothing.
Joel , December 7, 2017 9:03 am
Forgotten? LOL! No, Trump didn't forget. He was lying.
little john , December 7, 2017 4:01 pm
I hate doing this because I am not a fan of the President but a "de facto ban on Muslim immigration"? I cannot remember but
I don't think Indonesia, Pakistan, India or Turkey was on the list. Those a pretty big Muslim nations. Maybe you should look it
up. "Unleashing ICE against Latinos"? I have three Latino neighbors on my street, my next door neighbor doesn't even speak English,
but I haven't seen any ICE agents around. Maybe I should just wait they're on their way? "Fulminating against NFL players"? You're
right about that.
As an aside I have recently had to laugh when I see your pseudonym. Here in Dallas we've taken down the statue of Robert E.
Lee from Robert E. Lee Park. (Now named Oak Lawn Park.) At the opening of the park in 1936 there is a great picture of the statue
with FDR, Robert E Lee IV and D.W. Griffith. I am wondering if NewDealDemocrat is a microaggression?
run75441 , December 8, 2017 9:35 am
NDD:
Before you bemoan the loss of the CSR (covered by Section 1402 of the ACA) for those making between 138 and 250% FPL, you do
understand premium subsidies will pick up the difference. If the states apply the premium increase properly to the Silver plans,
the impact is felt across all other levels between 138% and 400% FPL. Indeed, in many cases Bronze plans are free, Gold plans
become less costly, and premiums decrease. A person can go to a lower deductible/copay for the same or less cost than the original
silver plan.
I think as some will tell you here, this does nothing for those greater than 400% FPL who now find themselves being hit with
the full impact of a premium increase due to Trump's action. While a much smaller percentage of the insured, it still numbers
around 9 million.
spencer , December 8, 2017 1:45 pm
Isn't that 8 million being hit out of the under 20 million that had signed up for Obamacare.
So on a percent basis doesn't you quote imply about half of the relevant population is being hit?
Special prosecutor was appointed. But not the one that Ben Domenech expected. Still a very
interesting detail is this article is that Comey seems to be very well informed about this
mechanism and used it himself. So "special prosecutor gambit" was played by an experienced chess
player with full support from intelligence agencies and within certain circle of high level
officials within FBI and Justice department.
Notable quotes:
"... This was, of course, the Valerie Plame/CIA affair which ensnared top White House official Scooter Libby, who was later charged by the special prosecutor and convicted by a jury. And who was the individual at the DOJ who appointed the special prosecutor? James Comey, the current director of the FBI. ..."
We deserve a justice system that actually delivers justice. The current system that is so
obviously rigged in favor of certain politicians cannot. With the race for the Democratic
nomination effectively concluded, Hillary Clinton now awaits the endorsement of President Obama , which they expect to come
within the next few weeks. Obama is poised to play
a big role in Clinton's campaign against Donald Trump, acting as an emissary to groups and
audiences that have been more reluctant to support Clinton in the past. But this creates its
own set of problems: namely, that the FBI under the auspices of Obama's administration is also
actively investigating Clinton's email server and her mishandling of classified
information.
It's hard to see any way that a conclusion reached under people like Loretta Lynch, serving
at the pleasure of a president advocating vociferously for Clinton's election, would be seen as
treating the candidate fairly. Even if Clinton is cleared, a dark cloud will hang over the
process. And Clinton herself should not be comfortable with the prospect of a process Trump
will certainly denounce as crooked, especially considering that many Americans would likely
agree with him.
Rather than deal with the typical rhetorical battles over this issue that have played out on
cable television over the past year, Republicans in Washington should cite historical precedent
in this context. Back in 2003, when a top presidential appointee was suspected of mishandling
classified information, that president's attorney general recused himself from the matter. A
special prosecutor was appointed to investigate the allegations and determine if prosecution
was warranted. That prosecutor investigated the case, brought charges, and obtained a
conviction.
This was, of course, the Valerie Plame/CIA affair which ensnared top White House
official Scooter Libby, who was later charged by the special prosecutor and convicted by a
jury. And who was the individual at the DOJ who appointed the special prosecutor? James Comey,
the current director of the FBI.
John Aschroft, the attorney general under George W. Bush, had the good sense to recuse
himself from the matter and appoint Comey to make the decision about how the case ought to
proceed. Ashcroft knew his own involvement would only taint whatever decision was finally made.
So he removed entirely the possibility of political interference by recusing himself. As a
Senator, Barack Obama hailed the verdict in that
case and the process that led to it.
Republicans ought to demand that Loretta Lynch do the same thing Obama's current FBI
director did when he worked at the Department of Justice in 2003: appoint a special
prosecutor.
If Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong, if no laws were broken, no classified information was
mishandled, and no American men and women were put at risk as a result of her actions, then she
has nothing to fear from an independent investigation of her activities. Where she stands right
now is the worst of all worlds: she could still be prosecuted by FBI/DOJ, but if she's not,
everyone will assume that political interference saved her. She can never get out from under
that cloud, no matter what happens.
An independent prosecutor, however, can put all of that to rest. If he or she finds evidence
of any crimes, then the case will be prosecuted. And if the prosecutor decides not to charge,
we'll know that it wasn't a political decision.
This is actually the best of all worlds for Hillary, because it actually gives her the
opportunity to clear her name, if she's innocent. It also happens to be the best solution for
the American public. We deserve a justice system that actually delivers justice. We deserve a
law enforcement system that actually enforces the law. A special prosecutor can deliver it. The
current system that is so obviously rigged in favor of certain politicians cannot.
Ben Domenech is the publisher
of The Federalist. Sign up for a free trial of his daily newsletter, The Transom.
Two FBI officials who
would later be assigned to the special counsel's investigation into Donald Trump's
presidential campaign described him as an "idiot" and "loathsome human" in a series of text
messages last year, according to copies released on Tuesday.
One said in an election night text that the prospect of a Trump victory was
"terrifying".
the fact that Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed gave this story a new interesting light.
Notable quotes:
"... The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First was former British spy Christopher Steele's largely unverified dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate. ..."
"... And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used faulty software it was later forced to rewrite . The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server. ..."
"... The Huffington Post published my piece on Nov. 5, 2016, that predicted three days before the election that if Clinton lost she'd blame Russia. My point was confirmed by the campaign-insider book Shattered, which revealed that immediately after Clinton's loss, senior campaign advisers decided to blame Russia for her defeat. ..."
"... I published another piece , which the Huffington Post editors promoted, called, "Blaming Russia To Overturn The Election Goes Into Overdrive." I argued that "Russia has been blamed in the U.S. for many things and though proof never seems to be supplied, it is widely believed anyway." ..."
"... BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election. ..."
Under increasing pressure from a population angry about endless wars and the transfer of wealth to the one percent, American
plutocrats are defending themselves by suppressing critical news in the corporate media they own. But as that news emerges on
RT and dissident websites, they've resorted to the brazen move of censorship, which is rapidly spreading in the U.S. and Europe.
I know because I was a victim of it.
At the end of October, I wrote an
article for Consortium
News about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign paying for unvetted opposition research that became
the basis for much of the disputed story about Russia allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election.
The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First
was former British spy Christopher Steele's
largely unverified
dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate.
And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery
of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used
faulty software
it was later forced to
rewrite
. The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server.
My piece also described the dangerous consequences of partisan Democratic faith in Russia-gate: a sharp increase in geopolitical
tensions between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S., and a New McCarthyism that is spreading fear -- especially in academia, journalism
and civil rights organizations -- about questioning the enforced orthodoxy of Russia's alleged guilt.
After the article appeared at Consortium News , I tried to penetrate the mainstream by then publishing a version of the
article on the HuffPost, which was
rebranded from the Huffington Post in April this year by new management. As a contributor to the site since February 2006,
I am trusted by HuffPost editors to post my stories directly online. However, within 24 hours of publication on Nov. 4, HuffPost
editors retracted
the article without any explanation.
This broke with the earlier principles of journalism that the Web site espoused. For instance, in 2008, Arianna Huffington
told radio host Don Debar that, "We welcome all opinions,
except conspiracy theories." She said: "Facts are sacred. That's part of our philosophy of journalism."
But Huffington stepped down as editor in August 2016 and has nothing to do with the site now. It is
run by Lydia Polgreen, a former New York Times reporter and editor, who evidently has very different ideas. In April,
she completely redesigned the site and renamed it HuffPost.
Before the management change, I had published several articles on the Huffington Post about Russia without controversy.
For instance, The Huffington Post published my
piece on Nov. 5,
2016, that predicted three days before the election that if Clinton lost she'd blame Russia. My point was confirmed by the
campaign-insider book Shattered, which revealed that immediately after Clinton's loss, senior campaign advisers decided to
blame Russia for her defeat.
On Dec. 12, 2016, I published another
piece , which the Huffington Post editors promoted, called, "Blaming Russia To Overturn The Election Goes Into Overdrive."
I argued that "Russia has been blamed in the U.S. for many things and though proof never seems to be supplied, it is widely believed
anyway."
After I posted an updated version of the Consortium News piece -- renamed "On the Origins of Russia-gate" -- I was informed
23 hours later by a Facebook friend that the piece had been retracted by HuffPost editors. As a reporter for mainstream media
for more than a quarter century, I know that a newsroom rule is that before the serious decision is made to retract an article the
writer is contacted to be allowed to defend the piece. This never happened. There was no due process. A HuffPost editor ignored
my email asking why it was taken down.
Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take
up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union
rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals
in such situations on principle, not preference.
In terms of their responsibilities for defending journalism and protecting civil liberties, their personal opinions about whether
Russia-gate is real or not are irrelevant. The point is whether a journalist has the right to publish an article skeptical of it.
I worry that amid the irrational fear spreading about Russia that concerns about careers and funding are behind these decisions.
One online publication decidedly took the HuffPost's side. Steven Perlberg, a media reporter for BuzzFeed, asked
the HuffPost why they retracted my article. While ignoring me, the editors issued a statement to BuzzFeed saying that
"Mr. Lauria's self-published" piece was "later flagged by readers, and after deciding that the post contained multiple factually
inaccurate or misleading claims, our editors removed the post per our contributor terms of use." Those terms include retraction for
"any reason," including, apparently, censorship.
Perlberg posted the HuffPost statement
on Twitter. I asked him if he inquired of the editors what those "multiple" errors and "misleading claims" were. I asked him to contact
me to get my side of the story. Perlberg totally ignored me. He wrote nothing about the matter. He apparently believed the HuffPost
and that was that. In this way, he acquiesced with the censorship.
BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though
the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed
reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most
ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian
consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became
clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election.
That Russia-gate has reached this point, based on faith and not fact, was further illustrated by a Facebook exchange I had with
Gary Sick, an academic who served on the Ford and Carter national security staffs. When I pressed Sick for evidence of Russian interference,
he eventually replied: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck " When I told him that was a very low-bar for such serious
accusations, he angrily cut off debate.
When belief in a story becomes faith-based or is driven by intense self-interest, honest skeptics are pushed aside and trampled.
True-believers disdain facts that force them to think about what they believe. They won't waste time making a painstaking examination
of the facts or engage in a detailed debate even on something as important and dangerous as a new Cold War with Russia.
This is the most likely explanation for the HuffPost 's censorship: a visceral reaction to having their Russia-gate faith
challenged.
Looks like Browder was connected to MI6. That means that intellignece agances participated in economic rape of Russia That's explains a lot, including his change of citizenship from US to UK. He wanted better
protection.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War. ..."
"... Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale. ..."
"... Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme. ..."
"... Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy. ..."
"... That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along. ..."
"... By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son. ..."
"... But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post. ..."
"... There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past. ..."
"... Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen." ..."
"... So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War. ..."
"... Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false." ..."
"... First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue. ..."
"... From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available. ..."
"... Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you. ..."
"... Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis. ..."
"... Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes. ..."
"... Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it. ..."
"... I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant. ..."
"... Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it. ..."
"... Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years. ..."
"... Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product. ..."
"... "[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row? ..."
"... "The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement. ..."
"... "The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD. ..."
"... Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination. ..."
"... Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not). ..."
"... I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them. ..."
"... backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries. ..."
"... I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. ..."
"... I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up. ..."
"... The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ..."
Exclusive: A documentary debunking the Magnitsky myth, which was an opening salvo in the New Cold War, was largely blocked from
viewing in the West but has now become a factor in Russia-gate, reports Robert Parry.
Near the center of the current furor over Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 is a documentary that
almost no one in the West has been allowed to see, a film that flips the script on the story of the late Sergei Magnitsky and his
employer, hedge-fund operator William Browder.
The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented
a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death
in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S.
Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called
the first shot in the New Cold War.
According to Browder's narrative, companies ostensibly under his control had been hijacked by corrupt Russian officials in furtherance
of a $230 million tax-fraud scheme; he then dispatched his "lawyer" Magnitsky to investigate and – after supposedly uncovering evidence
of the fraud – Magnitsky blew the whistle only to be arrested by the same corrupt officials who then had him locked up in prison
where he died of heart failure from physical abuse.
Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became
a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of
President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov
even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale.
However, the project took an unexpected
turn when Nekrasov's research kept turning up contradictions to Browder's storyline, which began to look more and more like a
corporate cover story. Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky
– rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme.
So, the planned docudrama suddenly was transformed into a documentary with a dramatic reversal as Nekrasov struggles with what
he knows will be a dangerous decision to confront Browder with what appear to be deceptions. In the film, you see Browder go from
a friendly collaborator into an angry adversary who tries to bully Nekrasov into backing down.
Blocked Premiere
Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for
a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats
– the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part,
brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy.
Film director Andrei Nekrasov, who produced "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes."
As a lawyer defending Prevezon, a real-estate company registered in Cyprus, on a money-laundering charge, she
was dealing with U.S. prosecutors in New York City and, in that role, became an advocate for lifting the U.S. sanctions, The
Washington Post reported.
That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the
sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian
government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump
campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along.
By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky
Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One
source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump
Tower with Trump's son.
But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's
blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.
There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the
Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm
the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations
in the past.
Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams,
the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen."
In an article about the controversy in June 2016, The New York Times
added that "A screening at the Newseum is especially controversial because it could attract lawmakers or their aides." Heaven
forbid!
One-Time Showing
So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion
moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially
shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment
of the New Cold War.
Financier William Browder (right) with Magnitsky's widow and son, along with European parliamentarians.
After the Newseum presentation,
a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing
his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov
of using "facts highly selectively" and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin's "campaign to discredit Mr. Browder
and the Magnitsky Act."
The Post also misrepresented the structure of the film by noting that it mixed fictional scenes with real-life interviews and
action, a point that was technically true but willfully misleading because the fictional scenes were from Nekrasov's original idea
for a docu-drama that he shows as part of explaining his evolution from a believer in Browder's self-exculpatory story to a skeptic.
But the Post's deception is something that almost no American would realize because almost no one got to see the film.
The Post concluded smugly: "The film won't grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin's increasingly
sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television
networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky's family.
"We don't worry that Mr. Nekrasov's film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully
exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions."
The Post's gleeful editorial had the feel of something you
might read in a totalitarian
society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for
saying something that almost no one heard.
New Paradigm
The Post's satisfaction that Nekrasov's documentary would not draw a large audience represents what is becoming a new paradigm
in U.S. mainstream journalism, the idea that it is the media's duty to protect the American people from seeing divergent narratives
on sensitive geopolitical issues.
Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about
"Russian propaganda" and "fake
news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets
eagerly awaiting algorithms
that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false."
First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such
as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of
Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue.
In the meantime, there is the ad hoc approach that was applied to Nekrasov's documentary. Having missed the Newseum showing, I
was only able to view the film because I was given a special password to an online version.
From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was.
I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
But the Post's editors were right in their expectation that "The film won't grab a wide audience." Instead, it has become a good
example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call "the other side of the story." The film
now, however, has unexpectedly become a factor in the larger drama of Russia-gate and the drive to remove Donald Trump Sr. from the
White House.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't
Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You
did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give
us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you.
Rob Roy , July 13, 2017 at 2:45 pm
Parry isn't keeping the film viewing a secret. He was given a private password and perhaps can get permission to let the readers
here have it. It isn't up to Parry himself but rather to the person(s) who have the rights to the password. I've come across this
problem before.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 4:01 pm
Parry wrote: I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
Any link?? I am willing to buy it.
Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:28 pm
This may not be of much help, as the film is dubbed in Russian. If you want to look for the Russian versions on the internet,
search for: "????? ?????? ????????? "????? ???????????. ?? ????????"
Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain
in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the
Russian financial crisis.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes.
incontinent reader , July 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Well stated.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Mr. Parry,
Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding
Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the
film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it.
Is there any chance you can share information regarding a means of accessing the forbidden film?
I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding
back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America
and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and
1984 not so distant.
Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews.
I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into
accurately reporting it.
Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars.
The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial,
at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years.
Demonizing other countries is bad enough, but wilfully ignoring the potential for a nuclear war to end not only war, but life
as we know it, is appalling.
"After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson "
Am I the only one who thinks that Max Boot should have been institutionalized for some time already? He is not well.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 9:41 pm
Anna,
Perhaps Max can share a suite with John McCain. Sadly, the illness is widespread and sometimes seems to be in the majority. Neo
con/lib both are adamant in finding enemies and imposing punishment.
Finding splinters, ignoring beams. Changing regimes everywhere. Making the world safe for Democracy. Unless a man they don't
like get elected
Max Boot parents are Russain Jews who seemingly instilled in him a rabid hatred for everything Russian. The same is with Aperovitch,
the CrowdStrike fraudster. The first Soviet (Bolshevik) government was 85% Jewish. Considering what happened to Russia under Bolsheviks,
it seems that Russians are supremely tolerant people.
Anna, Anti-Semitism will get you NOWHERE, and you should be ashamed of yourself for injecting such HATRED into the rational
discussion here.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Dear orwell
re Anna
Its not anti Semitic if its true .and its true he is a Russian Jew and its very obvious he hates Russia–as does the whole Jewish
Zionist crowd in the US.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:02 am
orwell, I wonder why the truth always turns out to be so anti-semitic!?
Taras77 , July 13, 2017 at 11:17 pm
I hope you caught the preceding tucker interview with Ralph Peters, who says he is a retired us army LTC. He came off as completely
deranged and hysterical. The two interviews back to back struck me as neo con desperation and panic. My respect for Tucker
just went up for taking on these two wackos.
Zachary Smith , July 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm
The fact that the film is being suppressed by everybody is significant to me. I don't know a thing about the "facts" of the
Magnitsky case, and a quick look at the results of a Google search suggests this film isn't going to be available to me unless
I shell out some unknown amount of money.
If the producers want the film to be seen, perhaps they ought to release it for download to any interested parties for a nominal
sum. This will mean they won't make any profit, but on the other hand they will be able to spit in the eyes of the censors.
Dan Mason , July 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm
I went searching the net for access to this film and found that I was blocked at every turn. I did find a few links which all
seemed to go to the same destination which claimed to provide access once I registered with their site. I decided to avoid that
route. I don't really have that much interest in the Magnitsky affair, but I do wonder why we are being denied access to information.
Who has this kind of influence, and why are they so fearful. I'm really afraid that we already live in a largely hidden Orwellian
world. Now where did I put that tin foil hat?
The Orwellian World is NOT HIDDEN, it is clearly visible.
Drew Hunkins , July 13, 2017 at 2:53 pm
Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and
took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary
film product.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Drew – good comment. It's very hard to "turn", isn't it? I wonder if many people appreciate what it takes to do this. Easier
to justify, turn a blind eye, but to actually stop, question, think, and then follow where the story leads you takes courage and
strength.
Especially when your bucking an aggressive billionaire.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:49 am
BannanaBoat – that too!
Zim , July 13, 2017 at 3:11 pm
This is interesting:
"In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary
of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank!
for which he was paid $500,000.
"Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives
were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.
Members of Congress wrote to Mrs. Clinton in 2010 seeking to deny visas to people who had been implicated by Russian accountant
Sergei Magnitsky, who was jailed and died in prison after he uncovered evidence of a large tax-refund fraud. William Browder,
a foreign investor in Russia who had hired Mr. Magnitsky, alleged that the accountant had turned up evidence that Renaissance
officials, among others, participated in the fraud."
The State Department opposed the sanctions bill at the time, as did the Russian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov pushed Hillary Clinton to oppose the legislation during a meeting in St. Petersburg in June 2012, citing that U.S.-Russia
relations would suffer as a result."
"[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some
past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row?
Now I remember that Post editorial. I was one of only 20 commenters before they shut down comments. It was some heavy pearl
clutching.
afterthought couldn't the film be shown on RT America?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:11 am
Would that not enable Bowder's employees online to claim that this documentary is Russian state propaganda, which it obviously
is not because it would have been made available for free everywhere already just like RT. I believe that Nekrasov does not like
RT and RT probably still does not like Nekrasov. The point of RT has never been the truth then the alternative point of view,
as they advertised: Audi alteram partem.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 3:41 pm
"The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical
blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein
and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a
body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better
indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement.
Moreover, when one reflects on the fact much of this 'body of reporting' was shoehorned after the fact into an analytical
premise predicated on a single source of foreign-provided intelligence, that statement suddenly loses much of its impact.
"The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of
Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic.
The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and
decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed
in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD.
'President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those
who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet
nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of
'analysis of alternatives' mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments
and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA's vaunted 'Red Cell' was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments
of premises such as 'What if President Putin is telling the truth?'
'Throughout its history, the NIC has dealt with sources of information that far exceeded any sensitivity that might attach
to Brennan's foreign intelligence source. The NIC had two experts that it could have turned to oversee a project like the Russia
NIA!the NIO for Cyber Issues, and the Mission Manager of the Russian and Eurasia Mission Center; logic dictates that both should
have been called upon, given the subject matter overlap between cyber intrusion and Russian intent.
'The excuse that Brennan's source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to
them, is ludicrous!both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA's mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the
most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into
Russian meddling in the American electoral process.
'President Trump has come under repeated criticism for his perceived slighting of the U.S. intelligence community in repeatedly
citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure when downplaying intelligence reports, including the Russia
NIA, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Adding insult to injury, the president's most recent comments were made
on foreign soil (Poland), on the eve of his first meeting with President Putin, at the G-20 Conference in Hamburg, Germany, where
the issue of Russian meddling was the first topic on the agenda.
"The politics of the wisdom of the timing and location of such observations aside, the specific content of the president's
statements appear factually sound."
Thanks Abe once again, for providing us with news which will never be printed or aired in our MSM. Brennan may ignore the NIC,
as Congress and the Executive Branch constantly avoid paying attention to the GAO. Why even have these agencies, if our leaders
aren't going to listen them?
Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:16 pm
Abe, I'm always amazed at how much you know. Thank you for sharing. If you have your comments in article form or on a site
where they can be shared, I'd really like to know about it. I've tried, but I garble the many points you make when trying to explain
historical events you've told us about.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 9:08 am
Thanks Abe. You are a real asset to us here at CN.
John V. Walsh , July 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm
Very good article! The entire Magnitsky saga has become so convoluted and mired in controversy and propaganda that it is very
hard to understand. I remember vaguely the controversy surrounding the showing of the film at the Newseum. it is especially impressive
that Nekrasov changed his opinion as fcts unfolded.
I will now try to get the docudrama and watch it.
If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, please let me know via a response. here.
Thanks.
A 'Magnitsky Act' in Canada was approved by the (appointed) Senate several months ago and is now undergoing fine tuning in
the House of Commons prior to a third and final vote of approval. The proposed law has the unanimous support of the parties in
Parliament.
A column in today's Globe and Mail daily by the newspaper's 'chief political writer' tiptoes around the Magnitsky story, never
once daring to admit that a contrary narrative exists to that of Bill Browder.
Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern
about Canada following the Cold War without examination.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Roger Annis – just little lemmings following the leader. Disgusting. I hope you posted a comment at the Globe and Mail, Roger,
with a link to this article.
Britton , July 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm
Browder is a Communist Jew, his father has a Communist past according to his background so I know I can't trust anything he
says. Hes just one of many shady interests undermining Putin I've seen over the years. His book Red Notice is just as shady. Good
reporting Consortium News. Fox News promotes Browder like crazy every chance they get especially Fox Business channel.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm
"Browder is a Communist " Hedge Fund managers are hardly Communist – that's an oxymoron.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm
Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also
a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state
assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution
(in name yes, but in fact not).
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm
ToivoS,
thank you for this background information.
My main intention had been to straighten out the blurring of calling a hedge fund manager communist. Nowadays everything gets
blurred by people misrepresenting political concepts. Either the people have been dumbed-down by misinformation or misrepresenting
is done in order to keep neo-liberalism the dominant economical model. On many occasions I had read comments of people seemingly
believing that Nationalsocialism had been some variant of socialism. Even the ideas of Bernie Sanders had been misrepresented
as socialist instead of social democratic ones.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm
Joe Average – Dave P. mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book entitled "Two Hundred Years Together" the other day. I've been
reading a long synopsis of this book. What Britton says appears to be quite true. I don't know about Browder, but from what I've
read the Jews were instrumental in the communist party, in the deaths of so many Russians. It wasn't just the Jews, but they played
a big part. It's no wonder Solzhenitsyn's book has been "lost in translation", at least into English, for so many years.
I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could
(with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is
getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a
stop to them.
Dave P. , July 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm
backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and
construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial
institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work
place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going
on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All
the plunder flowed into the Western Countries.
In recent history, no country went through this kind of plunder on a scale Russia went through during ten or fifteen years
starting in 1992. Russia was a very badly ravaged country when Putin took over. Means of production, finance, all came to halt,
and society itself had completely broken down. It appears that the West has all the intentions to do it again.
I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of
the crooks looting Russia. Then he got to John McCain with all his lies and bullshit and was responsible for the sanctions
on Russia. All the comments aboutBrowders grandfather andCommunist party are all true but hardly important. Except that it probably
was how Browder was able to get his fingers on the pie in Russia. And he sure did get his fingers in the pie BIG TIME.
I am a Canadian and am aware of Maginsky Act in Canada. Our Minister Chrystal Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a
few months ago both of these two you could say are not fans of Putin, I certainly don't know what they spoke about but other than
lies from Browder there is no reason she should have been talking with him. I have made comments on other forums regarding these
two meeting. Read Browders book and hopefully see the documentary that this article is about. When I read his book I knew instantly
that he was a crook a charloten and a liar. Just the kind of folk John McCain and a lot of other folks in US politics love. You
all have a nice Peacefull day
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:38 am
Joe Average – "I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further
rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's."
No, it doesn't put the blame entirely on the Jews; it just spells out that they did play a large part. As one Jewish scholar
said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was too much of an academic, too intelligent to ever put the blame entirely on one group. But something
like 40 – 60 million died – shot, taken out on boats with rocks around their necks and thrown overboard, starved, gassed in rail
cars, poisoned, worked to death, froze, you name it. Every other human slaughter pales in comparison. Good old man, so civilized
(sarc)!
But someone(s) has been instrumental in keeping this book from being translated into English (or so I've read many places online).
Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and his other books have been translated, but not this one. (Although I just found one site
that has almost all of the chapters translated, but not all). Several people ordered the book off Amazon, only to find out that
it was in the Russian language. LOL
Solzhenitsyn does say at one point in the book: "Communist rebellions in Germany post-WWI was a big reason for the revival
of anti-Semitism (as there was no serious anti-Semitism in the imperial [Kaiser] Germany of 1870 – 1918)."
Lots of Jewish people made it into the upper levels of the Soviet government, academia, etc. (and lots of them were murdered
too). I might skip reading these types of books until I get older. Too bleak. Hard enough reading about the day-to-day stuff here
without going back in time for more fun!
I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart.
I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia
was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it
up.
Keep smiling, Joe.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:58 am
Dave P. – I told you, you are a wealth of information, a walking encyclopedia. Interesting about your co-worker. Sounds like
it was a free-for-all in Russia. Yes, I totally agree that Putin has done and is doing all he can to bring his country back up.
Very difficult job he is doing, and I hope he is successful at keeping the West out as much as he can, at least until Russia is
strong and sure enough to invite them in on their own terms.
Now go and tell your wife what I said about you being a "walking encyclopedia". She'll probably have a good laugh. (Not that
you're not, but you know what she'll say: "Okay, smartie, now go and do the dishes.")
Chucky LeRoi , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 am
Just some small scale, local color kind of stuff, but living in the USA, west coast specifically, it was quite noticeable in
the mid to late '90's how many Russians with money were suddenly appearing. No apparent skills or 'jobs', but seemingly able to
pay for stuff. Expensive stuff.
A neighbor invited us to her 'place in the mountains', which turned out to be where a lumber company had almost terra-formed
an area and was selling off the results. Her advice: When you go to the lake (i.e., the low area now gathering runoff, paddle
boats rentals, concession stand) you will see a lot of men with huge stomachs and tiny Speedos. They will be very rude, pushy,
confrontational. Ignore them, DO NOT comment on their rudeness or try to deal with their manners. They are Russians, and the amount
of trouble it will stir up – and probable repercussions – are simply not worth it.
Back in town, the anecdotes start piling up quickly. I am talking crowbars through windows (for a perceived insult). A beating
where the victim – who was probably trying something shady – was so pulped the emergency room staff couldn't tell if the implement
used was a 2X4 or a baseball bat. When found he had with $3k in his pocket: robbery was not the motive. More traffic accidents
involving guys with very nice cars and serious attitude problems. I could go on. More and more often somewhere in the relating
of these incidents the phrase " this Russian guy " would come up. It was the increased use of this phrase that was so noticeable.
And now the disclaimer.
Before anybody goes off, I am not anti-Russian, Russo-phobic, what have you. I studied the Russian language in high school
and college (admittedly decades ago). My tax guy is Russian. I love him. My day to day interactions have led me to this pop psychology
observation: the extreme conditions that produced that people and culture produced extremes. When they are of the good, loving
, caring, cultured, helpful sort, you could ask for no better friends. The generosity can be embarrassing. When they are of the
materialistic, evil, self-centered don't f**k with me I am THE BADDEST ASS ON THE PLANET sort, the level of mania and self-importance
is impossible to deal with, just get as far away as possible. It's worked for me.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm
backwardsevolution,
thanks for the info. I'll add the book to the list of books onto my to-read list. As far as I know a Kibbutz could be described
as a Communist microcosm. The whole idea of Communism itself is based on Marx (a Jew by birth). A while ago I had started reading
"Mein Kampf". I've got to finish the book, in order to see if my assumption is correct. I guess that this book puts blame for
Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's.
The most known Russian Oligarchs that I've heard of are mainly of Jewish origin, but as far as I know they had been too young
to be commissars at the time of the demise of the USSR. At least one aspect I've read of many times is that a lot of them built
their fortunes with the help of quite shady business dealings.
With regard to President Putin I've read that he made a deal with the oligarchs: they should pay their taxes, keep/invest their
money in Russia and keep out of politics. In return he wouldn't dig too deep into their past. Right at the moment everybody in
the West is against President Putin, because he stopped the looting of his country and its citizens and that's something our Western
oligarchs and financial institutions don't like.
On a side note: Several years ago I had started to read several volumes about German history. Back then I didn't notice an
important aspect that should attract my attention a few years later when reading about the rise of John D. Rockefeller. Charlemagne
(Charles the Great) took over power from the Merovingians. Prior to becoming King of the Franks he had been Hausmeier (Mayor of
the Palace) for the Merovingians. Mayor of the Palace was the title of the manager of the household, which seems to be similar
to a procurator and/or accountant (bookkeeper). The similarity of the beginnings of both careers struck me. John D. Rockefeller
started as a bookkeeper. If you look at Bill Gates you'll realize that he was smart enough to buy an operating system for a few
dollars, improved it and sold it to IBM on a large scale. The widely celebrated Steve Jobs was basically the marketing guy, whilst
the real brain behind (the product) Apple had been Steve Wozniak.
Another side note: If we're going down the path of neo-liberalism it will lead us straight back to feudalism – at least if
the economy doesn't blow up (PCR, Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers, Richard D. Wolff, and many more economists
make excellent points that our present Western economy can't go on forever and is kept alive artificially).
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:50 am
Joe Average – somehow my reply to you ended up above your post. What? How did that happen? You can find it there. Thanks for
the interesting info about John D. Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak. Some are good managers, others good at sales, while others
are the creative inventors.
Yes, Joe, I totally agree that we are headed back to feudalism. I don't think we'll have much choice as the oil is running
out. We'll probably be okay, but our children? I worry about them. They'll notice a big change in their lifetimes. The discovery
and capture of oil pulled forward a large population. As we scale back, we could be in trouble, food-wise. Or at least it looks
that way.
Thanks, Joe.
Miranda Keefe , July 14, 2017 at 5:48 am
Charlemagne did not take over from the Merovingians. The Mayor of the Palace was not an accountant.
During the 7th Century the Mayor of the Place more and more became the actual ruler of the Franks. The office had existed for
over a century and was basically the "prime minister" to the king. By the time Pepin of Herstal, a scion of a powerful Frankish
family, took the position in 680, the king was ceremonial leader doing ritual and the Mayor ruled- like the relationship of the
Emperor and the Shogun in Japan. In 687 Pepin's Austrasia conquered Neustria and Burgundy and he added "Duke of the Franks" to
his titles. The office became hereditary.
When Pepin died in 714 there was some unrest as nobles from various parts of the joint kingdoms attempted to get different
ones of his heirs in the office until his son Charles Martel took the reins in 718. This is the famous Charles Martel who defeated
the Moors at Tours in 732. But that was not his only accomplishment as he basically extended the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony.
Charles not only ruled but when the king died he picked which possible heir would become king. Finally near the end of his reign
he didn't even bother replacing the king and the throne was empty.
When Charles Martel died in 741 he followed Frankish custom and divided his kingdom among his sons. By 747 his younger son,
Pepin the Short, had consolidated his rule and with the support of the Pope, deposed the last Merovingian King and became the
first Carolingian King in 751- the dynasty taking its name from Charles Martel. Thus Pepin reunited the two aspects of the Frankish
ruler, combining the rule of the Mayor with the ceremonial reign of the King into the new Kingship.
Pepin expanded the kingdom beyond the Frankish lands even more and his son, Charlemagne, continued that. Charlemagne was 8
when his father took the title of King. Charlemagne never was the Mayor of the Palace, but grew up as the prince. He became King
of the Franks in 768 ruling with his brother, sole King in 781, and then started becoming King of other countries until he united
it all in 800 as the restored Western Roman Emperor.
When he died in 814 the Empire was divided into three Kingdoms and they never reunited again. The western one evolved into
France. The eastern one evolved in the Holy Roman Empire and eventually Germany. The middle one never solidified but became the
Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Italian states.
The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock
together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian
Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/
Since the inti-Russian tenor of the Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland is in accord with the US ziocons anti-Russian policies
(never mind all this fuss about WWII Jewish mass graves in Ukraine), "Chrysta" is totally approved by the US government.
Joe Average , July 14, 2017 at 11:32 pm
I'll reply to myself in order to send a response to backwardsevolution and Miranda Keefe.
For a change I'll be so bold to ignore gentleman style and reply in the order of the posts – instead of Ladies first.
backwardsevolution,
in my first paragraph I failed to make a clear distinction. I started with the remark that I'm adding the book "Two Hundred
Years Together" to my to-read list and then mentioned that I'm right now reading "Mein Kampf". All remarks after mentioning the
latter book are directed at this one – and not the one of Solzhenitsyn.
Miranda Keefe,
I'm aware that accountant isn't an exact characterization of the concept of a Mayor of the Palace. As a precaution I had added
the phrase "seems to be similar". You're correct with the statement that Charlemagne was descendant Karl Martel. At first I intended
to write that Karolinger (Carolings) took over from Merowinger (Merovingians), because those details are irrelevant to the point
that I wanted to make. It would've been an information overload. My main point was the power of accountants and related fields
such as sales and marketing. Neither John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs actually created their products from scratch.
Many of those who are listed as billionaires haven't been creators / inventors themselves. Completely decoupled from actual
production is banking. Warren Buffet is started as an investment salesman, later stock broker and investor. Oversimplified you
could describe this activity as accounting or sales. It's the same with George Soros and Carl Icahn. Without proper supervision
money managers (or accountants) had and still do screw those who had hired them. One of those victims is former billionaire heiress
Madeleine Schickedanz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz
). Generalized you could also say that BlackRock is your money manager accountant. If you've got some investment (that dates
back before 2008), which promises you a higher interest rate after a term of lets say 20 years, the company with which you have
the contract with may have invested your money with BlackRock. The financial crisis of 2008 has shown that finance (accountants
/ money managers) are taking over. Aren't investment bankers the ones who get paid large bonuses in case of success and don't
face hardly any consequences in case of failure? Well, whatever turn future might take, one thing is for sure: whenever SHTF even
the most colorful printed pieces of paper will not taste very well.
Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:13 pm
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks on
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks . EVER SINCE THE Emperor Constantine established the legal
position of the church in the
Many Bolsheviks fled to Germany , taking with them some loot that enabled them to get established in Germany. Lots of invaluable
art work also.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 am
Cal – read about "History's Greatest Heist" on Amazon. Sounds interesting. Was one of the main reasons for the Czar's overthrow
to steal and then flee? It's got to have been on some minds. A lot of people got killed, and they would have had wedding rings,
gold, etc. That doesn't even include the wealth that could be stolen from the Czar. Was the theft just one of those things that
happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow in the first place, get some dough and run with
it?
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm
@ backwards
" Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow"'
imo some of both. I am sure when they were selling off Russian valuables to finance their revolution a lot of them set aside
some loot for themselves.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm
Cal – thank you. Good books like this get us closer and closer to the truth. Thank goodness for these people.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 11:45 am
An autocratic oligarch would probably be a better description. He probably believes like other Synarchist financiers that they
should rightfully rule the World, and see democratic processes as heresy against "The Natural Order for human society", or some
such belief.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm
Looking up "A short definition of Synarchism (a Post-Napoleonic social phenomenon) by Lyndon LaRouche" would give much insight
into what's going on. People from the intelligence community made sure a copy of a 1940 army intelligence dossier labelled something
like "Synarchism:NAZI/Communist" got into Lyndon's hands. It speaks of the the Synarchist method of attacking a targeted society
from both extreme (Right-Left) ends of the political spectrum. I guess this is dialectics? I suppose the existence of the one
extreme legitimizes the harsh, anti-democratic/anti-human measures taken to exterminate it by the other extreme, actually destroying
the targeted society in the process. America, USSR, and (Sun Yat Sen's old Republic of) China were the targeted societies in the
pre-WWII/WWII yearsfor their "sins" of championing We The People against Oligarchy. FDR knew the Synarchist threat and sided with
Russia and China against Germany and Japan. He knew that, after dealing with the battlefield NAZIs, the "Boardroom" NAZIs would
have to be dealt with Post-War. That all changed with his death.The Synarchists are still at it today, hence all the rabid Russo-phobia,
the Pacific Pivot, and the drive towards war. This is all being foiled with Trump's friendly, cooperative approach towards Russia
and China.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Big Brother at work – always protecting us from upsetting information. How nice of him to insure our comfort. No need for us
to bother with all of this confusing stuff, he can do all that for us. The mainstream media will tell us all we need to know ..
(Virginia – please notice my use of irony.)
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Do you remember mike K when porn was censored, and there were two sides to every issue as compromise was always on the table?
Now porn is accessible on cable TV, and there is only one side to every issue, and that's I'm right about everything and your
not, what compromise with you?
Don't get me wrong, I don't really care how we deal with porn, but I am very concerned to why censorship is showing up whereas
we can't see certain things, for certain reasons we know nothing about. Also, I find it unnerving that we as a society continue
to stay so undivided. Sure, we can't all see the same things the same way, but maybe it's me, and I'm getting older by the minute,
but where is our cooperation to at least try and work with each other?
Always like reading your comments mike K Joe
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm
Joe,
when it comes to the choice of watching porn and bodies torn apart (real war pictures), I prefer the first one, although we
in the West should be confronted with the horrible pictures of what we're assisting/doing.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 5:27 pm
This is where the Two Joe's are alike.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm
I do remember those days Joe. I am 86 now, so a lot has changed since 1931. With the 'greed is good' philosophy in vogue now,
those who seek compromise are seen as suckers for the more single minded to take advantage of. Respect for rules of decency is
just about gone, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid.
Distraction from critical thinking, excellent observation ( please forget the NeoCon Demos they are responsible for half of
the nightmare USA society has become.
ranney , July 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Wow Robert, what a fascinating article! And how complicated things become "when first we practice to deceive".
Abe thank you for the link to Ritter's article; that's a really good one too!
John , July 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm
If we get into a shooting war with Russia and the human race somehow survives it Robert Parry' s name will one day appear in
the history books as the person who most thoroughly documented the events leading up to that war. He will be considered to be
a top historian as well as a top journalist.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:01 pm
"Browder, who abjured his American citizenship in 1998 to become a British subject, reveals more about his own selective advocacy
of democratic principles than about the film itself. He might recall that in his former homeland freedom of the press remains
a cherished value."
Abe – "never driven by the money". No, he would never be that type of guy (sarc)!
"It's hard to know what Browder will do next. He rules out any government ambitions, instead saying he can achieve more by
lobbying it.
This summer, he says he met "big Hollywood players" in a bid to turn his book into a major film.
"The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film," he says. "I have been approached
by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what
the best constellation of players will be on this.
"There are a lot of people looking at it. It's still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting
options, but I'm not going to name any names."
What the ..? I can see it now, George Clooney in the lead role, Mr. White Helmets himself, with his twins in tow.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:56 am
Is it not impressive how money buys out reality in the modern world? This is why one can safely assume that whatever is told
in the MSM is completely opposite to the truth. Would MSM have to push it if it were the truth? You may call this Kiza's Law if
you like (modestly): " The truth is always opposite to what MSM say! " The 0.1% of situations where this is not the case
is the margin of error.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm
"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill
Browder [ ]
"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing
billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated
British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia.
He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.
"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel,
to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection
come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?
"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum,
though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how
Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a
partner but also a mentor and friend.
"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party,
the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University,
the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising
that none of it gets mentioned.
"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that
seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."
Abe – what a web. Money makes money, doesn't it? It's often what club you belong to and who you know. I remember a millionaire
in my area long ago who went bankrupt. The wealthy simply chipped in, gave him some start-up money, and he was off to the races
again. Simple as that. And I would think that the Jews are an even tighter group who invest with each other, are privy to inside
information, get laws changed in favor of each other, pay people off when one gets in trouble. Browder seems a shifty sort. As
the article says, he leaves a lot out.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 11:37 pm
In 1988, Stanton Wheeler (Yale University – Law School), David L. Weisburd (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; George Mason University
– The Department of Criminology, Law & Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Faculty of Law). Elin Waring (Yale University
– Law School), and Nancy Bode (Government of the State of Minnesota) published a major study on white collar crime in America.
Part of a larger program of research on white-collar crime supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice's
National Institute of Justice, the study included "the more special forms associated with the abuse of political power [ ] or
abuse of financial power". The study was also published as a Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper
The research team noted that Jews were over-represented relative to their share of the U.S. population:
"With respect to religion, there is one clear finding. Although many in both white collar and common crime categories do not
claim a particular religious faith [ ] It would be a fair summary of our. data to say that, demographically speaking, white collar
offenders are predominantly middle-aged white males with an over-representation of Jews."
In 1991, David L. Weisburd published his study of Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts,
Weisburd found that although Jews comprised only around 2% of the United States population, they contributed at least 9% of lower
category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes
(mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud).
Weisburg showed greater frequency of Jewish offenders at the top of the hierarchy of white collar crime. In Weisbug's sample of
financial crime in America, Jews were responsible for 23.9%.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:26 am
What I find most interesting is how Putin handles the Jews.
It is obvious that he is the one who saved the country of Russia from the looting of the 90s by the Russian-American Jewish
mafia. This is the most direct explanation for his demonisation in the West, his feat will never be forgiven, not even in history
books (a demon forever). Even to this day, for example in Syria, Putin's main confrontation is not against US then against the
Zionist Jews, whose principal tool is US. Yet, there is not a single anti-Semitic sentence that Putin ever uttered. Also, Putin
let the Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia keep their money if they accepted the authority of the Russian state, kept employing
Russians and paying Russian taxes. But he openly confronted those who refused (Berezovsky, Khodorovsky etc). Furthermore, Putin
lets Israel bomb Syria under his protection to abandon. Finally, Putin is known in Russia as a great supporter of Jews and Israel,
almost a good friend of Nutty Yahoo.
Therefore, it appears to me that the Putin's principal strategy is to appeal to the honest Jewish majority to restrain the
criminal Jewish minority (including the criminally insane), to divide them instead of confronting them all as a group, which is
what the anti-Semitic Europeans have traditionally been doing. His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews.
I still do not know if his strategy will succeed in the long run, but it certainly is an interesting new approach (unless I do
not know history enough) to an ancient problem. It is almost funny how so many US people think that the problem with the nefarious
Jewish money power started with US, if they are even aware of it.
Cal , July 16, 2017 at 5:41 am
" His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. "
The Jews have no power without their uber Jew money men, most of whom are ardent Zionist.
And because they get some benefits from the lobbying heft of the Zionist control of congress they arent going to go against them.
In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians
and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".
The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the
Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various
publications in Russia.
Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival
Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave
one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris
Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.
In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She
was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice
of America.
HIDE BEHIND , July 13, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Gramps was decended from an old Irish New England Yankee lineage and in my youth he always dragged me along when the town meetings
were held, so my ideas of American DEmocracy stem from that background, one of open participation.
The local newspapers had more social chit chat than political news of international or for that mstter State or Federal shenanigansbut
everu member in that far flung settled communit read them from front to back; ss a child I got to read the funny and sports pages
until Gramps got finidhed reading the "News Section, always the news first yhen the lesser BS when time allowed,this habit instilled
in me the sence of
priority.
Aftrr I had read his dection of paper he would talk with me,even being a yonker, in a serious but opinionated manner, of the Editorial
section which had local commentary letterd to the editor as large as somtimes too pages.
I wonder today at which section of papersf at all, is read by american public, and at how manyadults discuss importsn news worthy
tppics with their children.
At advent of TV we still had trustworthy journalist to finally be seen after years of but reading their columns or listening on
radios,almost tottaly all males but men of honesty and character, and worthy of trust.
They wrre a part of all social stratas, had lived real lives and yes most eere well educated but not the elitist thinking jrrks
who are no more than parrots repeating whatevrr a teleprompter or bias of their employers say to write.
Wrll back to Gramps and hid home spun wisdom: He alwsys ,and shoeed by example at those old and somrtimes boistrous town Halls,
that first you askef a question, thought about the answer, and then questioned the answer.
This made the one being question responsible for the words he spoke.
So those who have doubts by a presumed independent journalist, damn right they should question his motives, which in reality begin
to answer our unspoken questions we can no longer ask those boobs for bombs and political sychophants and their paymasters of
popular media outlets.
As one who likes effeciency in prodution one monitors data to spot trends and sny aberations bring questions so yes I note this
journalist deviation from the norms as well.
I can only question the why, by looking at data from surrounding trends in order to later be able to question his answers.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:07 am
Hide Behind – sounds like you had a smart grandpa, and someone who cared enough about you to talk things over with you (even
though he was opinionated). I try to talk things over with my kids, sometimes too much. They're known on occasion to say, "Okay,
enough. We're full." I wait a few days, and then fill them up some more! Ha.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Here's a thought; will letting go of Trump Jr's infraction cancel out a guilty verdict of Hillary Clinton's transgressions?
I keep hearing Hillary references while people defend Donald Trump Jr over his meeting with Russian Natalia Veselnitskaya.
My thinking started over how I keep hearing pundits speak to Trump Jr's 'intent'. Didn't Comey find Hillary impossible to prosecute
due to her lack of 'intent'? Actually I always thought that to be prosecuted under espionage charges, the law didn't need to prove
intent, but then again we are talking about Hillary here.
The more I keep hearing Trump defenders make mention of Hillary's deliberate mistakes, and the more I keep hearing Democrates
point to Donald Jr's opportunistic failures, the more similarity I see between the two rivals, and the more I see an agreed upon
truce ending up in a tie. Remember we live in a one party system with two wings.
Am I going down the wrong road here, or could forgiving Trump Jr allow Hillary to get a free get out of jail card?
F. G. Sanford , July 14, 2017 at 12:42 am
I've been saying all along, our government is just a big can of worms, and neither side can expose the other without opening
it. But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers like it's a game of chicken. My guess is, everybody is gonna get
a free pass. I read somewhere that Preet Bharara had the goods on a whole bunch of bankers, but he sat on it clear up to the election.
Then, he got fired. So much for draining the swamp. If they prosecute Hillary, it looks like a grudge match. If they prosecute
Junior, it looks like revenge. If they prosecute Lynch, it looks like racism. When you deal with a government this corrupt, everybody
looks innocent by comparison. I'm still betting nobody goes to jail, as long as the "deep state" thinks they have Trump under
control.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 1:29 am
It's like we are sitting on the top of a hill looking down at a bunch of little armies attacking each other, or something.
I'm really screwy, I have contemplated to if Petraues dropped a dime on himself for having a extra martial affair, just to
get out of the Benghazi mess. Just thought I'd tell you that for full disclosure.
When it comes to Hillary, does anyone remember how in the beginning of her email investigation she pointed to Colin Powell
setting precedent to use a private computer? That little snitch Hillary is always the one when caught to start pointing the finger
.she would never have lasted in the Mafia, but she's smart enough to know what works best in Washington DC.
I'm just starting to see the magic; get the goods on Trump Jr then make a deal with the new FBI director.
Okay go ahead and laugh, but before you do pass the popcorn, and let's see how this all plays out.
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
Joe
Lisa , July 14, 2017 at 4:22 am
"Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see."
Joe, where does this quote originate? Or is it a paraphrase?
I once had an American lecturer (political science) at the university, and he stressed the idea that we should not believe anything
we read or hear and only half of what we see. This was l-o-o-ng ago, in the 60's.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 10:59 am
The first time I ever heard that line, 'believe nothing of what you see', was a friend of mine said it after we watched Roberto
Clemente throw a third base runner out going towards home plate, as Robert threw the ball without a bounce to the catcher who
was standing up, from the deep right field corner of the field .oh those were the days.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 9:12 pm
JT,
Clemente had an unbelievable arm! The consummate baseball player I have family in western PA, an uncle your age in fact who remembers
Clemente well. Roberto also happened to be a great human being.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm
I got loss at Forbes Field. I was seven years old, it was 1957. I got separated from my older cousin, we got in for 50 cents
to sit in the left field bleachers. Like I said I loss my older cousin so I walked, and walked, and just about the time I wanted
my mum the most I saw daylight. I followed the daylight out of the big garage door, and I was standing within a foot of this long
white foul line. All of a sudden this Black guy started yelling at me in somekind of broken English to, 'get off the field, get
out of here'. Then I felt a field ushers hand grab my shoulder, and as I turned I saw my cousin standing on the fan side of the
right field side of the field. The usher picked me up and threw me over to my cousin, with a warning for him to keep his eye on
me. That Black baseball player was a young rookie who was recently just drafted from the then Brooklyn Dodgers .#21 Roberto Clemente.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:12 pm
You were a charmed boy and now you are a charmed man. Great story life is a Field of Dreams sometimes.
Zachary Smith , July 15, 2017 at 9:00 pm
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
My introduction to this had the wording the other way around:
"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."
This was because the workplace was saturated with rumors, and unfortunately there was a practice of management and union representatives
"play-acting" for their audience. So what you "saw" was as likely as not a little theatrical production with no real meaning whatever.
The two fellows shouting at each other might well be laughing about it over a cup of coffee an hour later.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 am
Sanford – "But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers " That's funny writing.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm
yessir, love it
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:41 am
Absolutely, one of the best political metaphors ever (unfortunately works in English language only).
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm
BTW, they are flashing at each other not only can openers then also jail cells and grassy knolls these days. But the can openers
would still be most scary.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 2:13 am
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options,
have been allowed to flourish here.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs,
criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:00 am
Abe – wow, what a story. I guess it's lucrative to "never forget"! Bandits.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
NCJRS Abstract
The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the
NCJRS Abstracts Database. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary
loans, or in a local library.
NCJ Number: NCJ 006180
Title: CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS – AN OVERVIEW
United States of America
Journal: ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY Volume:6 Issue:2 Dated:(SUMMER 1971) Pages:1-39
Date Published: 1971
Page Count: 15
.
Abstract: THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE,
LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS,
HOWEVER, THE JEWISH CRIME RATE TENDS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT OF NONJEWS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS FOR WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES,
THAT IS, COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIALLY RELATED CRIMES, SUCH AS FRAUD, FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY, AND EMBEZZLEMENT.
Index Term(s): Behavioral and Social Sciences ; Adult offenders ; Minorities ; Behavioral science research ; Offender classification
Country: United States of America
Language: English
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Cal – that does not surprise me at all. Of course they would be where the money is, and once you have money, you get nothing
but the best defense. "I've got time and money on my side. Go ahead and take me to court. I'll string this thing along and it'll
cost you a fortune. So let's deal. I'm good with a fine."
A rap on the knuckles, a fine, and no court case, no discovery of the truth that the people can see. Of course they'd be there.
That IS the only place to be if you want to be a true criminal.
Skip Scott , July 15, 2017 at 1:57 pm
Thanks again Abe, you are a wealth of information. I think you have to allow for anyone to make a mistake, and Bharara has
done a lot of good.
Longtime Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz and his team have directed their grievance at Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior
White House adviser.
Citing a person familiar with Trump's legal team, The Times said Kasowitz has bristled at Kushner's "whispering in the president's
ear" about stories on the Russia investigation without telling Kasowitz and his team.
The Times' source said the attorneys, who were hired as private counsel to Trump in light of the Russia investigation, view Kushner
"as an obstacle and a freelancer" motivated to protect himself over over Trump. The lawyers reportedly told colleagues the work
environment among Trump's inner circle was untenable, The Times said, suggesting Kasowitz could resign
Second
Who thinks Jared works for Trump? I don't.
Jared works for his father Charles Kushner, the former jail bird who hired prostitutes to blackmail his brother in law into not
testifying against him. Jared spent every weekend his father was in prison visiting him.,,they are inseparable.
Third
So what is Jared doing in his WH position to help his father and his failing RE empire?
Trying to get loans from China, Russia, Qatar,Qatar
And why Is Robert Mueller Probing Jared Kushner's Finances?
Because of this no doubt:..seeking a loan for the Kushners from a Russian bank.
The White House and the bank have offered differing accounts of the Kushner-Gorkov sit-down. While the White House said Kushner
met Gorkov and other foreign representatives as a transition official to "help advance the president's foreign policy goals."
Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB, said it was part of talks with business leaders about the bank's development strategy.
It said Kushner was representing Kushner companies, his family real estate empire.
Jared Kushner 'tried and failed to get a $500m loan from Qatar before http://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics
2 days ago –
Jared Kushner tried and failed to secure a $500m loan from one of Qatar's richest businessmen, before pushing his father-in-law
to toe a hard line with the country, it has been alleged. This intersection between Mr Kushner's real estate dealings and his
father-in-law's
The Kushners are about to lose their shirts..unless one of those foreign country's banks gives them the money.
At Kushners' Flagship Building, Mounting Debt and a Foundered Deal https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/nyregion/kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue.html
The Fifth Avenue skyscraper was supposed to be the Kushner Companies' flagship in the heart of Manhattan -- a record-setting $1.8
billion souvenir proclaiming that the New Jersey developers Charles Kushner and his son Jared were playing in the big leagues.
And while it has been a visible symbol of their status, it has also it has also been a financial headache almost from the start.
On Wednesday, the Kushners announced that talks had broken off with a Chinese financial conglomerate for a deal worth billions
to redevelop the 41-story tower, at 666 Fifth Avenue, into a flashy 80-story ultraluxury skyscraper comprising a chic retail mall,
a hotel and high-priced condominiums"
Get these cockroaches out of the WH please.,,,Jared and his sister are running around the world trying to get money in exchange
for giving them something from the Trump WH.
The NYC skyline displays 666 in really really really HUGE !!!! numbers. Perhaps the USA government as Cheney announced has
gone to the very very very DARK side.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Yea 666 probably isn't a coincidence .lol
Chris Kinder , July 14, 2017 at 12:15 am
What I think most comments overlook here is the following: the US is the primary imperialist aggressor in the world today,
and Russia, though it is an imperialist competitor, is much weaker and is generally losing ground. Early on, the US promised that
NATO would not be extended into Eastern Europe, but now look at what's happened: not only does the US have NATO allies and and
missiles in Eastern Europe, but it also engineered a coup against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, and is now trying to drive
Russia out of Eastern Ukraine, as in Crimea and the Donbass and other areas of Eastern Ukraine, which are basically Russian going
back more than a century. Putin is pretty mild compered to the US' aggressive stance. That's number one.
Number two is that the current anti-Russian hysteria in the US is all about maintaining the same war-mongering stance against
Russia that existed in the cold war, and also about washing clean the Democratic Party leadership's crimes in the last election.
Did the Russians hack the election? Maybe they tried, but the point is that what was exposed–the emails etc–were true information!
They show that the DNC worked to deprive Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and hide crimes of the Clintons'! These exposures,
not any Russian connection to the exposures, are what really lost Hillary the election.
So, what is going on here? The Democrats are trying to hide their many transgressions behind an anti-Russian scare, why? Because
it is working, and because it fits in with US imperialist anti-Russian aims which span the entire post-war period, and continue
today. And because it might help get Trump impeached. I would not mind that result one bit, but the Democrats are no alternative:
that has been shown to be true over and over again.
This is all part of the US attempt to be the dominant imperialist power in the world–something which it has pursued since the
end of the last world war, and something which both Democrats and Republicans–ie, the US ruling class behind them–are committed
to. Revolutionaries say: the main enemy is at home, and that is what I say now. That is no endorsement of Russian imperialism,
but a rejection of all imperialism and the capitalist exploitative system that gives rise to it.
Thanks for your attention -- Chris Kinder
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:58 am
Chris – good post. Thanks.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 11:35 am
Chris, I think most commenters here are aware of everything you summarized above, but we just don't put all that in each individual
post.
Paranam Kid , July 14, 2017 at 6:40 am
It is ironic that Browder on his website describes himself as running a battle against corporate corruption in Russia, and
there is a quote by Walter Isaacson: "Bill Browder is an amazing moral crusader".
http://www.billbrowder.com/bio
HIDE BEHIND , July 14, 2017 at 10:02 am
One cannot talk of Russian monry laundering in US without exposing the Jewish Israeli and many AIPAC connections.
I studied not so much the Jewish Orthodoxy but mainly the evolution of noth their outlook upon G.. but also how those who do not
believe in a G.. and still keep their cultural cohesiveness
The largest money laundering group in US is
both Jewish and Israeli, and while helping those of their cultural similarities, their ecpertise goes. Very deep in Eastern U.S.
politics and especially strong in all commercial real estate, funding, setting up bribes to permitting officials,contractors and
owners of construvtion firms.
Financials some quite large are within this Jew/Israel connections, as all they who offshore need those proper connections to
do so. take bribes need the funding cleaned and
flow out through very large tax free Jewish Charity Orgd, the largest ones are those of Orthodox.
GOV Christie years ago headed the largest sting operation to try and uproot what at that time he believed was just statewide tax
fraud and laundering operations, many odd cash flows into political party hacks running for evrry gov position electefd or appointed.
Catchng a member of one of the most influential Orthofox familys mrmbers, that member rolled on many many indivifuals of his own
culture.
It was only when Vhristies investigative team began turning up far larger cases of laundering and political donations thst msinly
centered in NY Stste and City, fid he then find out howuch power this grouping had.
Soon darn near every AIPAC aided elected politico from city state and rspecially Congress was warning him to end investigation.
Which he did.
His reward was for his fat ass to be funded for a run towards US Presidency, without any visibly open opposition by that cultural
grouping.
No it is not odd for Jewery to charge goyim usury or to aid in political schemes that advance their groups aims.
One thing to remenber by the Bible thumpers who delay any talks of Israel ; Christian Zionist, is that to be of their culture
one does not have to believe in G.
There are a few excellent books written about early days Jewish immigrant Pre Irish andblre Sicilian mafias.
The Jewish one remainst to this day but are as well orgNized as the untold history of what is known as "The Southern mafia.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Hide Behind – fascinating! I guess if we ever knew half of what goes on behind the scenes, we'd be shocked. We only ever know
things like this exist when people like you enlighten us, or when there's a blockbuster movie about it. Thanks.
Deborah Andrew , July 14, 2017 at 10:03 am
With great respect and appreciation for your writing about the current unsubstantiated conversations/writing about 'Russia-gate'
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts. Analysis and opinions,
that include the facts, may differ. However, it is the readers who will evaluate the varied analysis and opinions when they include
all the facts known. I raise this question, as it seems to me that we have a binary approach to our thinking and decision making.
Something is either good or bad, this or that. Sides are taken. Labels are added (such as conservative and progressive). Would
we not be wiser and would our decision making not be wiser if it were based on a set of principles? My own preference: the precautionary
principle and the principle of do no harm. I am suggesting that we abandon the phrase and notion of the 'other side of the story'
and replace it with: based on the facts now known, or, based on all the facts revealed to date or, until more facts are revealed
it appears
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts.
Replying to a question with another question isn't really good form, but given my knowledge level of this case I can see no
alternative.
How do you propose to determine the "facts" when virtually none of the characters involved in the affair appear trustworthy?
Also, there is a lot of evidence (displayed by Mr. Parry) that another set of "characters" we call the Mainstream Media are
extremely biased and one-sided with their coverage of the story.
Again – Where am I going to find those "facts" you speak of?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:52 am
Spot on.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Deborah Andrew – good comment, but the problem is that we never seem to get "the other side of the story" from the MSM. You
are right in pointing out that "the other side of the story" probably isn't ALL there is (as nothing is completely black and white),
but at least it's something. The only way we can ever get to the truth is to put the facts together and question them, but how
are you going to do that when the facts are kept away from us?
It can be very frustrating, can't it, Deborah? Cheers.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm
Nice comment.
None of us can know the exact truth of anything we ourselves haven't seen or been involved in. The best we can do is try to
find trusted sources, be objective, analytical and compare different stories and known the backgrounds and possible agendas of
the people involved in a issue or story.
We can use some clues to help us cull thru what we hear and read.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of
the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players,
or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public
figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the
topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors
and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially
well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can
associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which
can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy
them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real
issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though
other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal',
'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and
so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before
an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation
or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal
agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon'
and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely
why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have
any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for
maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility,
someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should
the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt
with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can
usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues
-- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess'
with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it
all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later,
and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner
sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players
and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose
interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which
forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which
works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions
in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion
with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well
with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more
key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them
into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat
less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses
the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for
the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed
or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically
deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made
by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations
-- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies
for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to
be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful
evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the
matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be
used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to
forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you
must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution
so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction
of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging
their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to
avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these.
In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references
or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their
authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators
supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. .
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior
record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the
topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally
in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.
Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute
opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe
JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a
single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone
on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior
motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and
persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment,
ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will
deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms
of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek
to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really
knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep
within.
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Wth respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen
to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players
can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE
READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum
of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get
permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay
– the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important
with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Michael Kenny , July 14, 2017 at 11:22 am
I don't really see Mr Parry's point. The banning of Nekrasov's film isn't proof of the accuracy of its contents and even less
does it prove that anything that runs counter to Nekrasov's argument is false. Nor does proving that a mainstream meida story
is false prove that an internet story saying the opposite is true. "A calls B a liar. B proves that A is a liar. That proves that
B is truthful." Not very logical! What seems to be established is that the lawyer in question represents a Russian-owned company,
a money-laundering prosecution against which was settled last May on the basis of what the company called a "surprise" offer from
prosecutors that was "too good to refuse". This "Russian government attorney" (dixit Goldstone) had information concerning illegal
campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr jumped at it and it makes no difference whether he was tricked
or even whether he actually got anything, his intent was clear. In addition DNC "dirt" did indeed appear on the internet via Wikileaks,
just as "dirt" appeared in the French election. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate and "Juniorgate" confirms MacronLeaks. The question
now is did Trump, as president, intervene to bring about this "too good to refuse" offer? That question cannot just be written
off with the "no evidence" argument.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm
God, you are persistent if nothing else. Keep repeating the same lie until it is taken as true, just like the MSM. You say
that Russia-gate, Macron leaks, etc can't be written off with the "no evidence" argument (how is that logical?), and then you
trash a film you haven't even seen because it doesn't fit your narrative. Maybe some evidence is provided in the film, did you
consider that possibility? That fact that Nekrasov started out to make a pro Broder film, and then switched sides, leads me to
believe he found some disturbing evidence. And if you look into Nekrasov you will find that he is no fan of Putin, so one has
to wonder what his motive is if he is lying.
I am wondering if you ever look back at previous posts, because you never reply to a rebuttal. If you did, you would see that
you are almost universally seen by the commenters here as a troll. If you are being paid, I suppose it might not matter much to
you. However, your employer should look for someone with more intelligent arguments. He is wasting his money on you.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 9:27 pm
Propaganda trolls attempt to trash the information space by dismissing, distracting, diverting, denying, deceiving and distorting
the facts.
The trolls aim at confusing rather than convincing the audience.
The tag team troll performance of "Michael Kenny" and "David" is accompanied by loud declarations that they have "logic" on
their side and "evidence" somewhere. Then they shriek that they're being "censored".
Propaganda trolls target the comments section of independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News, typically
showing up when articles discuss the West's "regime change" wars and deception operations.
Pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda trolls also strive to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism.
Hasbara smear tactics have intensified due to increasing Israeli threats of military aggression, Israeli collusion with the United
States in "regime change" projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and Israeli links to international organized crime
and terrorism in Syria.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:04 am
Gee Abe, you are a magician (and I thought that you only quote excellent articles). Short and sharp.
Abe , July 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm
When they have a hard time selling that they're being "censored" (after more than a dozen comments), trolls complain that they're
being "dismissed" and "invalidated" by "hostile voices".
exiled off mainstreet , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons
to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy
theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not
the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. Though
it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something
they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 pm
I think as you say Skip that most on this blog have seen through Michael Kenny's stuff. Nobody's buying it. He's harmless.
If he's here on his own dime, if we don't feed him, he will get bored and go away. If he's being payed, he may persist, but so
what. Sometimes I check the MSM just to see what the propaganda line is. Kenny is like that; his shallow arguments tell me what
we must counter to wake people up.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Yeah mike k, I know you're right. I don't know why I let the guy get under my skin. Perhaps it's because he never responds
to a rebuttal.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:14 am
Then you would have to waste more time rebutting the (equally empty) rebuttal.
The second thing is that many trolls suffer from DID, that is the Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka sock puppetry. There
is a bit of similarity in argument between David and Michael and HAWKINS, only one of them rebuts quite often.
Another excellent article! I wrote a very detailed
blog post
in which I methodically take apart the latest "revelation" about Donald Trump Jr.'s emails. I talk a lot about the Magnitsky
Act, which is very relevant to this whole story.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm
I always like reading your articles Philippe, you have a real talent. Maybe read what I wrote above, but I'm sensing this Trump
Jr affair will help Hillary more than anything, to give her a reprieve from any further FBI investigations. I mean somehow, I'm
sure by Hillary's standards and desires, that this whole crazy investigation thing has to end. So, would it not seem reasonable
to believe that by allowing Donald Jr to be taken off the hook, that Hillary likewise will enjoy the taste of forgiveness?
Tell me if you think this Donald Trump Jr scandal could lead to this Joe
PS if so this could be a good next article to write there I go telling the band what to play, but seriously if this Russian
conclusion episode goes on much longer, could you not see a grand bargain and a deal being made?
Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you like the blog. I wasn't under the impression that Clinton was under any particular
danger from the Justice Department, but even if she was, she doesn't have the power to stop this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense
because it's pushed by a lot of people that have nothing to do with her except for the fact that they would have preferred her
to win.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 6:48 pm
Excellent summary and analysis, Philippe. Key observation:
"as even the New York Times admits, there is no evidence that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr., Jared
Kushner and Paul Manafort for 20-30 minutes on 9 June 2016, provided any such information during that meeting. Donald Trump Jr.
said that, although he asked her about it, she didn't give them anything on Clinton, but talked to him about the Magnitsky Act
and Russia's decision to block adoption by American couples in retaliation. Of course, if we just had his word, we'd have no particularly
good reason to believe him. But the fact remains that no documents of the sort described in Goldstone's ridiculous email ever
surfaced during the campaign, which makes what he is saying about how the meeting went down pretty convincing, at least on this
specific point. It should be noted that Donald Trump Jr. has offered to testify under oath about anything related to this meeting.
Moreover, he also said during the interview he gave to Sean Hannity that there was no follow-up to this meeting, which is unlikely
to be a lie since he must know that, given the hysteria about this meeting, it would come out. He may not be the brightest guy
in the world, but surely he or at least the people who advised him before that interview are not that stupid."
Your own necpluribus article was one of the best I've seen summarising the whole controversy, and your exhaustive responses
to the pro-deep state critics was edifying. I am now convinced that your view of Veselnitskaya's role in the affair and the nature
her connections to the dossier drafting company GPS being based on their unrelated work on the magnitsky law is accurate.
"Bill Browder, born into a notable Jewish family in Chicago, is the grandson of Earl Browder, the former leader of the Communist
Party USA,[2] and the son of Eva (Tislowitz) and Felix Browder, a mathematician. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and attended
the University of Chicago where he studied economics. He received an MBA from Stanford Business School[3] in 1989 where his classmates
included Gary Kremen and Rich Kelley. In 1998, Browder gave up his US citizenship and became a British citizen.[4] Prior to setting
up Hermitage, Browder worked in the Eastern European practice of the Boston Consulting Group[5] in London and managed the Russian
proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.[6]"
Rake , July 15, 2017 at 9:13 am
Successfully keeping a salient argument from being heard is scary, given the social media and alternative media players who
are all ripe to uncover a bombshell. Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.
"Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks."
Agree.
P. Clark , July 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm
When Trump suggested that a Mexican-American judge might be biased because of this ethnicity the media said this was racist.
Yet these same outlets like the New York Times are now routinely questioning Russian-American loyalty because of their ethnicity.
As usual a ridiculous double standard. Basically the assumption is all Russians are bad. We didn't even have this during the cold
war.
Cal , July 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm
Yes indeed P. Clark .that kind or hypocrisy makes my head explode!
MichaelAngeloRaphaelo , July 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Enough's Enough
STOP DNC/DEMs
#CryBabyFakeNewsBS
Support Duly ELECTED
@POTUS @realDonaldTrump
#BoycottFakeNewsSponsors
#DrainTheSwamp
#MAGA
Wow, I just learned via this article that in US Nekrasov is labeled as "pro-Kremlin" by WaPo. That's just too funny. He's in
a relationship with a Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who is very well known for her anti-Russia mentality. Nekrasov is defenetly anti-Kremlin
if something. He was supposed to make an anti-Kremlin documentary, but the facts turned out to be different than he thought, but
still finished his documentary.
The lengths to which the Neo Conservative War Cabal will go to destroy freedom of speech and access to alternative news sources
underscores that the United States is becoming an Orwellian agitation-propaganda police state equally dedicated to igniting World
War III for Netanyahu, the Central Banks, our Wahhabic Petrodollar Partners, and a pipeline consortium or two. The Old American
Republic is dead.
Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm
Interesting to note that each and everyone of David's comments were bleached from this page. Looks like he was right about
the censorship. Sad.
Duly noted Abe. But you should adhere to the first part of the statement that you somehow forgot to include:
From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid
abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia),
and allegations that are unsupported by facts.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:06 pm
My favorite was David's claim that he contributed to this zine whilst it was publishing articles not to his liking (/sarc).
I kindly reminded him that people pay much more money to have publishing the way they like it – for example how much Bezos paid
for Washington Post, or Omidyar to establish The Intercept.
Except for such funny component, David's comments were totally substance free and useless. Nothing lost with bleaching.
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:44 am
You're practicing disinformation. He actually said he contributed early on and had problems with the recent course of the CN
trajectory. Censorship is cowardly.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm
Consortium News welcomes substantive comments.
"David" was presenting allegations unsupported by facts and disrupting on-topic discussion.
Violations of CN comment policy are taken down by the moderator. Period. It has nothing to do with "censorship".
Stop practicing disinformation and spin, "Roy G Biv".
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:57 pm
I stopped contributing after the unintellectual dismissal of scientific 911 truthers. And it's easy for you to paint over my
comments as they have been scrubbed. There was plenty of useful substance, it just ran against the tide. Sorry you didn't appreciate
it the contrary viewpoint or have the curiosity to read the backstory.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 5:02 pm
The cowardly claim of "censorship".
The typical troll whine is that their "contrary viewpoint" was "dismissed" merely because it "ran against the tide".
No. Your allegations were unsupported by facts. They still are.
Martyrdom is just another troll tactic.
dub , July 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm
torrent for the film?
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:56 am
Here is the pdf of the legal brief about the Magnitsky film submitted by Senator Grassly to Homeland Security Chief. Interesting
read and casts doubt on the claims made in the film, refutes several claims actually. Skip past Chuck Grassly's first two page
intro to get to the meat of it. If you are serious about a debate on the merits of the case, this is essential reading.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the brief.
But forget the spin from "Roy G Biv" because the brief actually refutes nothing about Andrei Nekrasov's film.
It simply notes that the Russian government was understandably concerned about "unscrupulous swindler" and "sleazy crook" William
Browder.
After your finished reading the brief, try to remember any time when Congress dared to examine a lobbying campaign undertaken
on behalf of Israeli (which is to say, predominantly Russian Jewish) interests, the circumstances surrounding a pro-Israel lobbying
effort and the potential FARA violations involved. or the background of a Jewish "Russian immigrant".
Note on page 3 of the cover letter the CC to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary. Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman,
a surgeon. Feinstein's paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family,
were from Saint Petersburg, Russia. While they were of German-Jewish ancestry, they practiced the Russian Orthodox faith as was
required for Jews residing in Saint Petersburg.
In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator,
with an estimated net worth of US$26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between US$43 million and US$99 million.
Like the rest of Congress, Feinstein knows the "right way" to vote.
David , July 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm
So you're saying because a Jew Senator was CC'd it invalidates the information? Read the first page again. The Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee is obligated to CC these submissions to the ranking member of the Committee, Jew heritage or not.
Misinformation and disinformation from you Abe, or generously, maybe lazy reading. The italicized unscrupulous swindler and sleazy
crook comments were quoting the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the Washington screening of Nekrasov's film and demonstrating
Russia's intentions to discredit Browder. You are practiced at the art of deception. Hopefully readers will simply look for themselves.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm
Ah, comrade "David". We see you're back muttering about "disinformation" using your "own name".
My statements about Senator Feinstein are entirely supported by facts. You really should look into that.
Also, please note that quotation marks are not italics.
And please note that the Russian Foreign Minister is legally authorized to present the view of the Russian government.
Browder is pretty effective at discrediting himself. He simply has to open his mouth.
I encourage readers to look for themselves, and not simply take the word of one Browder's sockpuppets.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm
It won't last papushka. Every post and pended moderated post was scrubbed yesterday, to the cheers of you and your mean spirited
friends. But truth is truth and should be defended. So to the point, I reread the Judiciary Committee linked document, and the
items you specified are in italics, because the report is quoting Lavrov's comments to a Moscow news paper and "another paper"
as evidence of Russia's efforts to undermine the credibility and standing of Browder. This is hardly obscure. It's plain as day
if you just read it.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm
Also Abe, before I get deleted again, I don't question any of you geneological description of Feinstein. I merely pointed out
that she is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and it is normal for the Chairman of the Committee (Republican)
to CC the ranking member. Unless of course it is Devin Nunes, then fairness and tradition goes out the window.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:01 pm
It's plain as day, "David" or whatever other name you're trolling under, that you're here to loudly "defend" the "credibility"
and "standing" of William Browder.
Sorry, but you're going to have to "defend" Browder with something other than your usual innuendo, blather about 9-11, and
slurs against RP.
Otherwise it will be recognized for what it is, repeated violation of CN comment policy, and taken down by the moderator again.
Good luck to any troll who wants to "defend" Browder's record.
But you're gonna have to earn your pay with something other than your signature unsupported allegations, 9-11 diversions, and
the "non-Jewish Russian haters gonna hate" propaganda shtick.
David , July 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm
I wish you would stop with the name calling. I am not a troll. I have been trying to make simple rational points. You respond
by calling me names and wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts. I suspect you are the
moderator of this page, and if so am surprised by your consistent negative references to Jews. I'm not Jewish but you're really
over the top. Of course you have many friends here so you get little push back, but I really hope you are not Bob or Sam.
Anonymous , July 16, 2017 at 10:26 am
We can see that it was what can be considered to be a Complex situation, where it was said that someone had Dirt on Hillary
Clinton, but there was No collusion and there was No attempted collusion, but there was Patriotism and Concern for Others during
a Perplexing situation.
This is because of what is Known as Arkancide, and which is associated with some People who say they have Dirt on the Clintons.
The Obvious and Humane thing to do was to arrange to meet the Russian Lawyer, who it was Alleged to have Dirt on Hillary Clinton,
regardless of any possible Alleged Electoral advantage against Hillary Clinton, and until further information, there may have
been some National Security Concerns, because it was Known that Hillary Clinton committed Espionage with Top Secret Information
on her Unauthorized, Clandestine, Secret Email Server, and the Obvious cover up by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and
so it was with this background that this Complex situation had to be dealt with.
This is because there is Greater Protection for a Person who has Dirt or Alleged Dirt on the Clintons, if that Information
is share with other People.
This is because it is a Complete Waste of time to go to the Authorities, because they will Not do anything against Clinton
Crimes, and a former Haitian Government Official was found dead only days before he was to give Testimony regarding the Clinton
Foundation.
We saw this with Seth Rich, where the Police Videos has been withheld, and we have seen the Obstruction in investigating that
Crime.
The message to Leakers is that Seth Rich was taken to hospital and Treated and was on his way to Fully Recovering, but he died
in hospital, and those who were thinking of Leaking Understood the message from that.
There was Also concern for Rob Goldstone, who Alleged that the Russian Lawyer had Dirt on the Clintons.
We Know that is is said Goldstone that he did Not want to hear what was said at the meeting.
This is because Goldstone wanted associates of Candidate Donald Trump to Know that he did Not know what was said at that meeting.
We now Know that the meeting was a set up to Improperly obtain a FISA Warrant, which was Requested in June of 2016, and that
is same the month and the year as the meeting that the Russian Lawyer attended.
There was what was an Unusual granting of a Special Visa so that the Russian Lawyer could attend that set up, which was Improperly
Used to Request a FISA Warrant in order to Improperly Spy on an Opposition Political Candidate in order to Improperly gain an
Electoral advantage in an Undemocratic manner, because if anything wrong was intended by Associates of Candidate Donald Trump,
then there were enough People in that meeting who were the Equivalent of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans,
because we Know that after that meeting, that the husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front row
seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for the Russian Lawyer.
There are Americans who consider that the 2 Major Political Party Tyranny has Betrayed the Constitution and the Principles
of Democracy, because they oppose President Donald Trump's Election Integrity Commission, because they think that the Establishment
Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupted Puppets of the Shadow Regime.
We Know from Senator Sanders, that if Americans want a Political Revolution, then they will need their own Political Party.
There are Americans who think that a Group of Democratic Party Voters and Republican Party Voters who have No association with
the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and that they may be named The Guardians of American Democracy.
These Guardians of American Democracy would be a numerous Group of People, and they would ask Republican Voters to Vote for
the Democratic Party Representative instead of the Republican who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, in exchange for
Democratic Party Voters to Vote for the Republican Party Candidate instead of the Democrat who is in Congress and who is seeking
Reelection, and the same can be done for the Senate, because the American People have to Decide if it is they the Shadow Regime,
or if it is We the People, and the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupt Puppets
of the Shadow Regime, and there would be equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats replaced in this manner, and so it will Not
affect their numbers in the Congress or the Senate.
There could be People who think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Unacceptability Biased and Unacceptability Corrupt during
the Democratic Party Primaries, and that if she wants a Democratic Party Candidate to be Elected in her Congressional District,
then she Should announce that she will Not be contesting the next Election, and there could be People who think that Speaker Paul
Ryan was Unacceptability Disloyal by insufficiently endorse the Republican Presidential nominee, and with other matters, and that
if he wants a Republican Party Candidate to be Elected in his Congressional District, then he Should announce that he will Not
be contesting the next Election, and then the Guardians of American Democracy can look at other Dinos and Rinos, including those
in the Senate, because the Constitution says the words: We the People.
There are Many Americans who have Noticed that Criminal Elites escape Justice, and Corruption is the norm in American Politics.
There are those who Supported Senator Sanders who Realize that Senator Sanders would have been Impeached had he become President,
and they Know that they Need President Donald Trump to prepare the Political Landscape so that someone like Senator Sanders could
be President, without a Coup attempt that is being attempted on President Donald Trump, and while these People may not Vote for
the Republicans, they can Refuse to Vote for the Democratic Party, until the conditions are there for a Constitutional Republic
and a Constitutional Democracy, and they want the Illegal Mueller Team to recuse themselves from this pile of Vile and Putrid
McCarthyist Lies Invented by their Shadow Regime Puppet Masters,
There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, and they have seen how several States
are Opposed to President Donald Trump's Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is
Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.
MillyBloom54 , July 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm
I just read this article in the Washington Monthly, and wish to read informed comments about this issue. There are suggestions
that organized crime from Russian was heavily involved. This is a complicated mess of money, greed, etc.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the article, which concludes:
"So, let's please stay focused on why this matters.
"And why was Preet Bharara fired again?"
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries have been allowed to
flourish in Israel.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Why was Bharara fired?
Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance,
Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.
Ain't gonna happen.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Remember Milly that essentially one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was fire Preet, and just days before
the long awaited trial. Then, Jeff Sessions settled the case for 6 million without any testimony on a 230 million dollar case,
days after. Spectacular and brazen, and structured to hide the identities of which properties were bought by which investors.
Hmmmm.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
By the way Milly, great summary article you have linked and one that everyone who is championing the Nekrasov film should read.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
The "great" article was not written by a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by Martin Longman, a blogger and Democratic
Party political consultant.
From 2012 to 2013, Longman worked for Democracy for America (DFA) a political action committee, headquartered in South Burlington,
Vermont, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
Since March 2014, political animal Longman has managed the The Washington Monthly website and online magazine.
Although it claims to be "an independent voice", the Washington Monthly is funded by the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation,
and well-heeled corporate entities http://washingtonmonthly.com/about/
Longman's credentials as a "progressive" alarmist are well established. Since 2005, he has been the publisher of Booman Tribune.
Longman admits that BooMan is related to the 'bogey man' (aka, bogy man, boogeyman), an evil imaginary character who harms children.
Vladimir Putin is the latest bogey man of the Democratic Party and its equally pro-Israel "opposition".
Neither party wants the conversation to involve Jewish Russian organized crime, because that leads to Israel and the pro-Israel
AIPAC lobby that funds both the Republican and Democratic parties.
"... If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual crimes were committed during them. ..."
"... The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy has come to light. ..."
"... There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks; ..."
"... There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy. ..."
"... If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists. ..."
"... Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would countenance fishing expeditions . It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is now engaging in. ..."
"... Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said. ..."
"... Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved? ..."
"... My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an editorial saying that Mueller should resign. ..."
"... It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take an objective view of its actions. ..."
"... It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced that Hillary Clinton had been cleared. ..."
"... By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election, which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide. ..."
"... They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him. Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans. ..."
"... Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing. ..."
"... Strzok was obviously at a VERY senior pay grade. It would be very surprising if HR had any jobs at Strzok's pay grade. ..."
"... once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there so that it has to be renewed every 12 months... ..."
"... This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did ..."
Almost eighteen months after Obama's Justice Department and the FBI launched the Russiagate investigation, and seven months after
Special Counsel Robert Mueller took the investigation over, the sum total of what it has achieved is as follows
(1) an indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates which concerns entirely their prior financial dealings, and which makes no
reference to the Russiagate collusion allegations;
(2) an indictment for lying to the FBI of George Papadopoulos, the junior volunteer staffer of the Trump campaign, who during
the 2016 Presidential election had certain contacts with members of a Moscow based Russian NGO, which he sought to pass off –
falsely and unsuccessfully – as more important than they really were, and which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion
allegations; and
(3) an indictment for lying to the FBI of Michael Flynn arising from his perfectly legitimate and entirely legal contacts with
the Russian ambassador after the 2016 Presidential election, which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion allegations,
and which looks as if it was brought about by an
act of entrapment
.
Of actual evidence to substantiate the claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election Mueller has
so far come up with nothing.
Here I wish to say something briefly about the nature of "collusion".
There is no criminal offence of "collusion" known to US law, which has led some to make the point that Mueller is investigating
a crime which does not exist.
There is some force to this point, but it is one which must be heavily qualified:
(1) Though there is no crime of "collusion" in US law, there most certainly is the crime of conspiracy to perform a criminal act.
Should it ever be established that members of the Trump campaign arranged with the Russians for the Russians to hack the DNC's
and John Podesta's computers and to steal the emails from those computers so that they could be published by Wikileaks, then since
hacking and theft are serious criminal acts a criminal conspiracy would be established, and it would be the entirely proper to do
to bring criminal charges against those who were involved in it.
This is the central allegation which lies behind the whole Russiagate case, and is the crime which Mueller is supposed to be investigating.
(2) The FBI is not merely a police and law enforcement agency. It is also the US's counter-espionage agency.
If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that
the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election
from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual
crimes were committed during them.
Since impeachment is a purely political process and not a legal process, should it ever be established that there were such secret
contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in
jeopardy, then I have no doubt that Congress would say that there were grounds for impeachment even if no criminal offences had been
committed during them.
The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts
or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United
States in jeopardy has come to light.
Specifically:
(1) There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of
John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks;
and
(2) There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election
which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy.
Such contacts as did take place between the Trump campaign and the Russians were limited and innocuous and had no effect on the
outcome of the election. Specifically there is no evidence of any concerted action between the Trump campaign and the Russians to
swing the election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump.
As I have previously discussed, the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is
not such evidence .
If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has
been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community
on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists.
Why then is the investigation still continuing?
Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would
countenance fishing expeditions. It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is
now engaging in.
How else to explain the strange decision to subpoena Deutsche Bank for information about loans granted by Deutsche Bank to Donald
Trump and his businesses?
Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading
international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is
quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said.
Yet in the desperation to find some connection between Donald Trump and Russia it is to these absurdities that Mueller is reduced
to.
Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions
in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved?
My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been
partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about
the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos.
Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an
editorial saying that Mueller
should resign.
The indictment against Manafort and Gates looks sloppy and rushed. Perhaps I am wrong but there has to be at least a suspicion
that the indictments were issued in a hurry to still criticism of Mueller of the kind that was now appearing in the Wall Street Journal.
Presumably the reason the indictment against Flynn was delayed was because his lawyers had just signaled Flynn's interest in
a plea bargain, and it took a few more weeks of negotiating to work that out.
It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour
and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take
an objective view of its actions.
In fact the Wall Street Journal was more right than it perhaps realised. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the FBI's
actions are open to very serious criticism to say the least, and that Mueller is simply not the person who can be trusted to take
an objective view of those actions.
Over the course of the 2016 election the FBI cleared Hillary Clinton over her illegal use of a private server to route classified
emails whilst she was Secretary of State though it is universally agreed that she broke the law by doing so.
The FBI does not seem to have even considered investigating Hillary Clinton for possible obstruction of justice after it also
became known that she had actually destroyed thousands of her emails which passed through her private server, though that was an
obvious thing to do.
It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced
that Hillary Clinton had been cleared.
By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and
that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election,
which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and
Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide.
In other words it was because of the FBI's actions in the first half of 2016 that Bernie Sanders is not now the President of the
United States.
In addition instead of independently investigating the DNC's claims that the Russians had hacked the DNC's and John Podesta's
computers, the FBI simply accepted the opinion of an expert – Crowdstrike – paid for by the DNC, which it is now known was partly
funded and was entirely controlled by the Hillary Clinton campaign, that hacks of those computers had actually taken place and that
the Russians were the perpetrators.
As a result Hillary Clinton was able to say during the election that the reason emails which had passed through those computers
and which showed her and her campaign in a bad light were being published by Wikileaks was because the Russians had stolen the emails
by hacking the computers in order to help Donald Trump.
It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been
in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign. The first meeting apparently took place in early July 2016, shortly before
the Russiagate investigation was launched.
Whilst there is some confusion about whether the FBI actually paid Steele for his information, it is now known that Steele was
in contact with the FBI throughout the election and continued to be so after, and that the FBI gave credence to his work.
Recently it has also come to light that Steele was also directly in touch with Obama's Justice Department, a fact which was only
disclosed recently.
The best
account of this has been provided by Byron York writing for The Washington Examiner
The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That
placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016,
Ohr's office was just steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump's initial travel ban executive order
and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice Department.
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working
on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was
paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.
Word that Ohr met with Steele and Simpson, first reported by Fox News' James Rosen and Jake Gibson, was news to some current
officials in the Justice Department. Shortly after learning it, they demoted Ohr, taking away his associate deputy attorney general
title and moving him full time to another position running the department's organized crime drug enforcement task forces.
It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained
at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of
persons belonging to involved the campaign team of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
In response to subpoenas issued at the instigation of the Congressman Devin Nunes the FBI has recently admitted that
the Trump Dossier cannot be verified
.
However the FBI and the Justice Department have so far failed to provide in response to these subpoenas information about the
precise role of the Trump Dossier in triggering the Russiagate investigation.
The FBI's and the Justice Department's failure to provide this information recently provoked an angry exchange between FBI Director
Christopher Wray and Congressman Jim Jordan during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
During that hearing Jordan said to Wray the following
Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now
know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together
a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier
was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the
basis for a warrant to spy on Americans.
In response Wray refused to say officially whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI obtaining the FISA warrants.
This was so even though officials of the FBI – including former FBI Director James Comey – have slipped out in earlier Congressional
testimony that it did.
This is also despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been provided by the Justice Department
and the FBI in response to Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress
because of the failure of the Justice Department and the FBI to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee Jordan also had this to say
Here's what I think -- I think Peter Strozk (sic) Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he's the guy who took the application
to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened , if you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats' campaign,
taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it to the FISA court
so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong as it gets
Peter Strzok is the senior FBI official who is now known to have had a leading role in both the FBI's investigation of Hillary
Clinton's misuse of her private server and in the Russiagate investigation.
Strzok is now also known to have been the person who changed the wording in Comey's statement clearing Hillary Clinton for her
misuse of her private email server to say that Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless'" as opposed to "grossly negligent".
Strzok – who was the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence – is now also known to have been the person who signed the
document which launched the Russiagate investigation in July 2016.
Fox News has
reported that Strzok was also the person who supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn. It is not clear whether this
covers the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017 during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian
ambassador. However it is likely that it does.
If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's lying to the FBI during this interview which made up the case
against him and to which he has now pleaded guilty. It is potentially even more important given the strong indications that Flynn's
interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was
a set-up intended
to entrap him by tricking him into lying to the FBI.
As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the
FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been the official within the FBI who was provided
by Steele with the Trump Dossier and who would have made the first assessment of the Trump Dossier.
Recently it has been disclosed that Special Counsel Mueller sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation supposedly after it
was discovered that Strzok had been sending anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he
was having an affair.
These messages were sent by Strzok to his lover during the election, but apparently only came to light in July this year, when
Mueller supposedly sacked Strzok because of them.
It seems that since then Strzok has been working in the FBI's human resources department, an astonishing demotion for the FBI's
former deputy director for counter-intelligence who was apparently previously considered the FBI's top expert on Russia.
Some people have questioned whether the sending of the messages could possibly be the true reason why Strzok was sacked. My colleague
Alex Christoforou has
reported on some
of the bafflement that this extraordinary sacking and demotion has caused.
Business Insider reports the anguished comments of former FBI officials incredulous that Strzok could have been sacked for such
a trivial reason. Here is what Business Insider
reports
one ex FBI official Mark Rossini as having said
It would be literally impossible for one human being to have the power to change or manipulate evidence or intelligence according
to their own political preferences. FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs.
If anything, the overwhelming majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
This is obviously right. Though the ex-FBI officials questioned by Business Insider are clearly supporters of Strzok and critics
of Donald Trump,
the same point has been made from the other side of the political divide by Congressman Jim Jordan
If you get kicked off the Mueller team for being anti-Trump, there wouldn't be anybody left on the Mueller team. There has
to be more
Adding to the mystery about Strzok's sacking is why the FBI took five months to confirm it.
Mueller apparently sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation in July and it was apparently then that Strzok was simultaneously
sacked from his previous post of deputy director for counter-espionage and transferred to human resources. The FBI has however only
disclosed his sacking now, five months later and only in response to demands for information from Congressional investigators.
There is in fact an obvious explanation for Strzok's sacking and the strange circumstances surrounding it, and I am sure that
it is the one which Congressman Jordan had in mind during his angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
I suspect that Congressman Jordan believes that the true reason why Strzok was sacked is that Strzok's credibility had become
so tied to the Trump Dossier that when its credibility collapsed over the course of the summer when the FBI finally realised that
it could not be verified his credibility collapsed with it.
If so then I am sure that Congressman Jordan is right.
We now know from a variety of sources but first and foremost from the
testimony to Congress of Carter Page
that the Trump Dossier provided the frame narrative for the Russiagate investigation until just a few months ago.
We also know that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report about supposed Russian meddling in
the 2016 election which was shown by the US intelligence chiefs to President elect Trump during their stormy meeting with him on
8th January 2017.
The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year the
top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
The June 2017 article in the Washington Post (discussed by me
here ) also all but confirms that it was
the Trump Dossier that provided the information which the CIA sent to President Obama in August 2016 which supposedly 'proved' that
the Russians were interfering in the election.
As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the
Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close
to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the
narrative frame when questioning witnesses about their supposed role in Russiagate.
These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain
all the surveillance warrants the FBI obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards.
Strzok's position as the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence makes it highly likely that he was the key official within
the FBI who decided that the Trump Dossier should be given credence, whilst his known actions during the Hillary Clinton private
server investigation and during the Russiagate investigation make it highly likely that it was he who was the official within the
FBI who sought and obtained the FISA warrants.
Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there also has to
be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump
administration at the start of the year.
This once again points to the true scandal of the 2016 election.
On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the
US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Hillary
Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
Given the hugely embarrassing implications of this for the FBI, it is completely understandable why Strzok, if he was the person
who was ultimately responsible for this debacle – as he very likely was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks – as he
very likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when it was finally concluded that the Trump Dossier upon which all
the FBI's actions were based could not be verified.
It would also explain why the FBI sought to keep Strzok's sacking secret, so that it was only disclosed five months after it happened
and then only in response to questions from Congressional investigators, with a cover story about inappropriate anti-Trump messages
being spread about in order to explain it.
This surely is also the reason why in defiance both of evidence and logic the Russiagate investigation continues.
Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable
why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive in order to draw attention away from their own activities.
Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing that
the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what
I said nine months ago in March .
When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the
second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair.
That always struck me as misconceived not because there may not be things to investigate in the Uranium One case but because the
focus of any new investigation should be what happened during the 2016 election, not what happened during the Uranium one case.
Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during
the election as the primary focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel.
In truth there should be no second Special Counsel. Since there is no Russiagate collusion to investigate the Russiagate investigation
– ie. the investigation headed by Mueller – should be wound up.
There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance
of US citizens carried out during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes (recently
cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman Jordan
are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
Top Clinton Aides Face No Charges After Making False Statements To FBI
Neither of the Clinton associates, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, faced legal consequences for their misleading statements,
which they made in interviews last year with former FBI section chief Peter Strzok.
These are acts to overthrow the legitimate government of the USA and therefore constitute treason. Treason is still punishable
by death. It is time for some public hangings. Trump should declare martial law. Put Patraeus and Flint in charge and drain the
swamp like he promised...
Absolutely. This is not political, about justice or corruption or election coercion, this is about keeping the fires lit under
Trump, no matter how lame or lying, in the hopes that something, anything, will arise that could be used to unseat Trump. Something
that by itself would be controversial but ultimately a nothing-burger, but piled upon the months and years of lies used to build
a false consensus of corruption, criminality and impropriety of Trump. Their goal has always been to undermine Trump by convincing
the world that Trump is evil and unfit using nothing but lies, that without Trump's endless twitter counters would have buried
him by now. While they know that can't convince a significant majority that these lies are true, what they can do is convince
the majority that everyone else thinks it true, thereby in theory enabling them to unseat Trump with minimal resistance, assuming
many will simply stand down in the face of a PERCEIVED overwhelming majority.
This is about constructing a false premise that they can use minimal FACTS to confirm. They are trying and testing every day
this notion with continuing probes and jabs in hopes that something....anything, sticks.
Mueller is a lot of things, but he is a politician, and skilled at that, as he has survived years in Washington.
So why choose KNOWN partisans for your investigation? He may not have known about Strzok, but he surely knew about Weitsmann's
ties to HRC, about Rhee being Rhodes personal attorney,..so why put them on, knowing that the investigations credibility would
be damaged? No way most of this would not come out, just due to the constant leaks from the FBI/DOJ.
What is the real goal, other than taking Trump down and covering up FBI/DOJ/Obama Admin malfeasance? These goons are all highly
experienced swamp dwellers, so I think there is something that is being missed here..
" The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year
the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
"
Oh, bull crap. None of them believed a word of it, and at least some of them were in on the dossier's creation.
They just wanted to put over their impeach/resist/remove scam on us deplorables so they could hang on to power and maintain
secrecy over all their years of criminal activity.
The FBI is a fraud on the sheeple. Indoctrinated sheeple believe FBI testimony. The M.O. of the FBI is entrapment of victims
and entrapped witnesses against victims using their Form 302 interrogations. The FBI uses forensic evidence from which gullible
juries trust the FBI financed reports. Power corrupts. The power to be believed because of indoctrination corrupts absolutely.
Keep your powder dry. Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes.
All this crap comes down to ONE THING: Sessions ... why he refuses to fire a mega-conflicted and corrupt POS Mueller...
Investigative reporter Sarah Carter hinted (last Friday?) that something big would be happening "probably within the next forty-eight
hours". She related this specifically to a comment that Sessions had been virtually invisible.
I will make a prediction:
THE COMING WEEK WILL BE A TUMULTUOUS WEEK FOR THOSE OBSESSED BY THE "RUSSIA COLLUSION CONSPIRACY" .
First, Sessions will announce significant findings and actions which will directly attack the Trump-Russia-Collusion narrative.
And then, the Democrats/Media/Hillary Campaign will launch a hystierical, viscious, demented political counter attack in a
final onslaught to take down Trump.
They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him.
Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein
does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans.
When Trump tries to get out of the trap by leaking he is thinking about firing Sessions, Lispin Lindsey goes on television
to say that will not be allowed too happen. If he fires Sessions, Congress would not approve ANY of Trump's picks for DOJ-leaving
Rosenstein in charge anyway.
Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew
it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing.
There is good reason for optimism: Trumpus Maximus is on the case.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes
(recently cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman
Jordan are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
The design has been exposed. It is now fairly clear WHAT the conspirators did.
We now enter the neutralization and mop-up phase.
And, very likely, people who know things will be EAGER to talk:
FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs. If anything, the overwhelming
majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
Bloomberg fed a fake leak that Mueller had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank. Democrats (Schiff) on the House Intelligence Committee fed fake information about Don Jr. that was leaked to CNN. Leading to
an embarrassing retraction. ABC's Brian Ross fed a fake leak about the Flynn indictment. Leading to an embarrassing retraction.
Maybe the operation that Sessions set up some time ago to catch leakers is bearing fruit after all. And Mueller should realize
that the ice is breaking up all around him.
once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just
the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there
so that it has to be renewed every 12 months...
This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse
Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did, in the classic method of diversion. Sideshow magicians have been doing it for millenia--"Look
over there" while the real work is done elsewhere. The true believers don't want to believe that Hitlary and the Democrap party
are complicit in the selling of Uranium One to the Ruskies for $145 million. No, no, that was something completely different and
Hitlary is not guilty of selling out the interests of the US for money. Nope, Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
Yep, that's it.
Mueller is now the official head of a shit show that's coming apart at the seams. He was too stupid to even bring on ANY non-Hitlary
supporting leftists which could have given him a smidgen of equibility, instead he stacked the deck with sycophant libtard leftists
who by their very nature take away ANY concept of impartiality, and any jury on the planet would see through the connivance like
glass. My guess is he's far too stupid to stop, and I happily await the carnage of his actions as they decimate the Democrap party.
"... FBI Director Christopher Wray has declined to tell the House Judiciary Committee if he was prohibited from sharing documents that would show whether the notorious Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. ..."
FBI Director Christopher Wray has declined to tell the House Judiciary Committee if he was prohibited from sharing documents that
would show whether the notorious Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
What exactly MI6 put in Steele dossier is true and what is lie is unclear. What is clear that
Steele himself cant; collect information of this type and at this level. He is just a low level
intelligence patsy. Even to invent all this staff he definitely relied on his MI6 source(s) which
may have a specific agenda and might be guided form Washington. Brennan was a well known Hillary
sympathizer has had huge influence on Obama and definitely capable of playing dirty tricks with
Trump. What is interesting that in FBI the dossier was handled by counterintelligence official who by
his job description should have very close contacts with CIA
The revelation came one day after the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard
Burr, told reporters that the committee had been working "backwards" to examine the memos as
part of its separate but parallel investigation into Russia's election meddling.
The memos were compiled into a dossier by veteran British spy Christopher Steele, who was
hired by a Washington, DC-based opposition research firm in June 2016 to investigate the Trump
campaign's ties to Russia. The firm, Fusion GPS, was first hired by unspecified anti-Trump
Republicans in late 2015. Democrats took over funding for the firm's work after Trump won the
GOP nomination.
all talk and smoking guns. never one question answered. If we were on that stand we would
have to answer not mumble and use legal jargon. sick of the whole mess.
Fuentes is right about Comey and his cohorts, and this shows how biased and criminal the
FBI was operating in very big cases that are all connected. These false investigation being
run by Mueller are all connected with Comey, but Mueller is heavily connected with Comey.
Mueller was also passed over by President Trump for director of the FBI. Mueller wanted that
position and didn't get it. Think he might be pissed? And now he's investigating President
Trump. This smells bad.
FBI-SIS Comey the leaker and the Agents that play the game. The DNC Russia dossier is the
ball that Comey pushed down the hill. Swamp needs to be drained.
So it is the fault of the president that the FBI reputation is in tatters . NO. It is the
fault of the FBI. Here in Europe we are laughing at the FBI and their reputation. Drain your
swamp which includes the FBI and CIA
I realized the FBI is corrupt when Comey testified before Congress. It is time to put all
FBI employees to be given lie detector tests. DITTO the CIA, NSA and all US intelligence
agencies. It might not be a bad idea to do the same for Pentagon and White House employees.
Extreme, maybe, but something isn't Kosher here.
Politics has truly become a children's game. Both sides are playing extremely biased
opposing enemy positions. Both sides scream nonsense at one another, neither side will
listen, and talking is out of the question. Both sides are shooting, but nobody gets shot.
Everybody is playing, but nobody is doing anything. Everybody has been caught out, but they
all keep playing. This is the never ending game with no rules except "hate Russia" that we
call "hate Russia." What do we need to do...ring the dinner bell? Come on Trump, you've won,
put them all in jail, and let's have pizza! Merry Christmas!
this government has gone way beyond investigations, it is infested with ...globalist
cockroaches and needs an exterminator. we need a military take down of this government with
Trump in command to deal with the infestation. with a take over they could then look at
everyone in government and bring charges for their attempted coups and subversion of our duly
elected president not to mention all the criminal deals and actions that made them millions,
then can charge and punish them as their charges imply ... this is serious, the government is
FUBAR...semper-fi..
Someone needs to get their hand on all the documents and other materials Obama had taken
out of the White House before he even left office. It was done under the guise that these
documents were for his Library and were going to be stored until the "library was built. This
is unprecedented and requires further journalistic scrutiny!
I would like to ask Tom Fuentes, (who is a regular on CNN), what are his thoughts about
COINTELPRO? What about Mark Felt during Nixon? After all, he claims that the FBI was squeaky
clean up to Comey. He's a lying douche bag.
"... He also oversaw the FBI's predawn raid in July of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's Virginia home. ..."
"... First came the email made public by Judicial Watch, where he wrote told Yates he was "so proud" and "in awe" of her decision not to defend Trump's initial travel ban. That was soon followed up by The Journal's revelation that he was in attendance at Clinton's election-night party. ..."
"... Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, asked , "How much more evidence do we need" that the Mueller team "has been irredeemably compromised by anti-Trump partisans" after his group published Weissmann's email. ..."
"... Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who has been leading the charge to have the Mueller investigation shut down, told Fox News that Trump was "being persecuted by Hillary Clinton's fan club." ..."
"... Democrats, however, said these latest attacks against the Mueller investigation, and individual investigators in particular, such as Weissmann, are just a sign of things to come with the probe reaching closer to the president. ..."
One of special counsel Robert Mueller's top investigators has come under fire from
conservatives.
That investigator, Andrew Weissmann, one of the team's most prominent members, sent an
email to former acting Attorney General Sally Yates praising her for not defending the Trump
administration's travel ban.
He also reportedly attended 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's
election-night party.
The investigator dubbed as special counsel Robert Mueller's "pit bull" by The New
York Times has come under fire for perceived bias against President Donald Trump.
That investigator, Andrew Weissmann, was reportedly in attendance at former Democratic
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's election night party last year at the Jacob K. Javits
Center in New York City,
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday. The revelation came days after the conservative
group,
Judicial Watch , published an email he sent to former acting Attorney General Sally Yates
praising her for refusing to defend Trump's controversial travel ban in January.
"If it's true that Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary's victory party, this is getting out of
hand," tweeted Ari Fleischer , who
served as White House press secretary under President George W. Bush.
Weissmann is one of
the most prominent investigators on Mueller's team.
Considered to be an expert on flipping "defendants into collaborators -- with either
tactical brilliance or overzealousness, depending on one's perspective," as The Times wrote in
October, Weissmann is the investigation's "pounding heart, a bookish, legal pit bull with two
Ivy League degrees, a weakness for gin martinis and classical music and a list of past enemies
that includes professional killers and white-collar criminals."
The prosecutor made a name for himself in high-profile cases involving New York's mob bosses
and at the turn of the century in the Enron scandal. He also oversaw the FBI's predawn raid
in July of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's Virginia home.
"If there's something to find, he'll find it," Katya Jestin, who used to work with Weissmann
in the US attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York, told The Times. "If there's
nothing there, he's not going to cook something up."
Weissmann comes under fire
But following the revelation that one top investigator on Mueller's team, Peter Strzok, had
been reassigned from the special counsel's team after he apparently sent anti-Trump text
messages during the 2016 election, Republicans began taking aim at Weissmann as the latest
example of an investigator biased against the president.
First came the email made public by Judicial Watch, where he wrote told Yates he was "so
proud" and "in awe" of her decision not to defend Trump's initial travel ban. That was soon
followed up by The Journal's revelation that he was in attendance at Clinton's election-night
party.
In a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, during which FBI Director Christopher
Wray was testifying, Republican Rep. Steve Chabot called "the depths of this anti-Trump bias
on" the special counsel's team "absolutely shocking."
Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch,
asked , "How much more evidence do we need" that the Mueller team "has been irredeemably
compromised by anti-Trump partisans" after his group published Weissmann's email.
"Shut it down," he said.
Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who has been leading the charge to have the
Mueller investigation shut down,
told Fox News that Trump was "being persecuted by Hillary Clinton's fan club."
Democrats, however, said these latest attacks against the Mueller investigation, and
individual investigators in particular, such as Weissmann, are just a sign of things to come
with the probe reaching closer to the president.
Already, Manafort and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, two of the most
prominent members of Trump's campaign, have been charged as part of the Russia investigation.
Manafort's associate, Rick Gates, was also charged, as was early Trump campaign foreign-policy
adviser George Papadopoulos.
Manafort and Gates pleaded not guilty to 12 counts including money laundering and conspiracy
against the US, and Flynn pleaded guilty on December 1 to one count of making false statements
to investigators about his contacts with Russians. Papadopoulos also pleaded guilty in July to
lying to the FBI about his interactions with Russia-linked individuals.
"I predict that these attacks on the FBI will grow louder and more brazen as the special
counsel does his work, and the walls close in around the president, and evidence of his
obstruction and other misdeeds becomes more apparent," Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York,
recently promoted to ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said during Thursday's
hearing.
Fuentes is right about Comey and his cohorts, and this shows how biased and criminal the
FBI was operating in very big cases that are all connected. These false investigation being
run by Mueller are all connected with Comey, but Mueller is heavily connected with Comey.
Mueller was also passed over by President Trump for director of the FBI. Mueller wanted that
position and didn't get it. Think he might be pissed? And now he's investigating President
Trump. This smells bad.
Why do these guys continue to pretend that Rod Rosenstein is ever going to oppose anything
involving Mueller or Comey, and why hasn't anyone removed that little criminal McCabe
yet?
No one is talking about the Regional offices of the FBI. I would imagine, 40-60 percent of
ALL adult Americans, after watching James Comey lay out the crimes of Hillary Clinton, then
say "OH, but we're not prosecuting her, because she didn't mean to do it". That is when
Americans said "WTF!". Every Criminal says they didn't mean to do it. Think about it, next
time you get ticketed for speeding, make sure to tell the Judge, there was no specific intent
to speed, therefore you can't prosecute. Not only the above, but now you have Michael Flynn
being bankrupted, and he pleads guilty because he ran out of money, and his family couldn't
take it anymore. That's now a win in this country. Pleads to a lie during an ambush interview
by an obviously bias'd white Knight FBI agent Peter Stroke. While Huma Abedin and Shirley
Mills get immunity deals...
LT. GEN. Flynn has his life ruined for being politically ambushed by the FBI and caught in
a LIE. HILLARY lies to Congress, The FBI, The American People and is out signing books. A 5'
7" pile of dung!! Memo to President Trump.....Pardon GENERAL FLYNN.
There never was Russian collusion on the trump side, now we know the corruption of the FBI
with the Obama and Clinton cabal. It's time to execute a lawful end to this mess. These
people all thought Hillary was in and really messed up in trying to cover their tracks. It is
all going to come out now. Some of these people will get executed and rightfully so.
When national security establishment is trying to undermine sitting President this is iether color revolution or coup d'état. In
the USa it looks more like color revolution.
"Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president
of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized."
Notable quotes:
"... The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview. ..."
"... Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy. ..."
"... In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize. ..."
"... In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring. ..."
"... From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult. ..."
"... Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority." ..."
"... Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater. ..."
"... What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves? ..."
"... Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag. ..."
"... How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in! ..."
"... Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter. ..."
"... Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief. ..."
"... One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US. ..."
"... In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary. ..."
The investigation to somehow blame Russia for Donald Trump's election has now merged with another establishment goal of isolating
and intimidating whistleblowers and other dissidents, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
The Russia-gate investigation has reached into the ranks of journalism with the House Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Randy
Credico, who produced a series about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for Pacifica Radio and apparently is suspected of having passed
on early word about leaked Democratic emails to Donald Trump's supporter Roger Stone.
The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving
into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release
of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview.
Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA
executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through
secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since
Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy.
In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a
plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize.
I interviewed Drake about the significance of Credico's subpoena, which Credico believes resulted from his journalism about the
persecution of Julian Assange for releasing information that powerful people would prefer kept hidden from the public. (I had a small
role in Credico's 14-part radio series, Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom . It was broadcast first as part of his Live
on the Fly Series, over WBAI and later on KPFA and across the country on community radio.)
Credico got his start as a satirist and became a political candidate for mayor of New York City and later governor of New York,
making mainstream politicians deal with issues they would rather not deal with.
I spoke to Thomas Drake by telephone on Nov. 30, 2017.
Dennis Bernstein: How do you look at Russiagate, based on what you know about what has already transpired in terms of the
movement of information? How do you see Credico's role in this?
Thomas Drake: Information is the coin of the realm. It is the currency of power. Anyone who questions authority or is perceived
as mocking authority -- as hanging out with "State enemies" -- had better be careful. But this latest development is quite troubling,
I must say. This is the normalization of everything that has been going on since 9/11. Randy is a sort of 21st century Diogenes who
is confronting authority and pointing out corruption. This subpoena sends a chilling message. It's a double whammy for Randy because,
in the eyes of the US government, he is a media figure hanging out with the wrong media figure [Julian Assange].
Dennis Bernstein: Could you say a little bit about what your work was and what you tried to do with your expose?
Thomas Drake: My experience was quite telling, in terms of how far the government will go to try to destroy someone's life.
The attempt by the government to silence me was extraordinary. They threw everything they had at me, all because I spoke the truth.
I spoke up about abuse of power, I spoke up about the mass surveillance regime. My crime was that I made the choice to go to the
media. And the government was not just coming after me, they were sending a really chilling message to the media: If you print this,
you are also under the gun.
Dennis Bernstein: We have heard the charges again and again, that this was a Russian hack. What was the source? Let's trace
it back as best we can.
Thomas Drake:In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive
amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including
Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring.
From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this
all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations
that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference.
But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult.
The advantage that intelligence has is that they can hide behind what they are doing. They don't actually have to tell the truth,
they can shade it, they can influence it and shape it. This is where information can be politicized and used as a weapon. Randy has
found himself caught up in these investigations by virtue of being a media figure and hanging out with "the wrong people."
Dennis Bernstein: It looks like the Russiagaters in Congress are trying to corner Randy. All his life he has spoken truth
to power. But what do you think the role of the press should be?
Thomas Drake: The press amplifies just about everything they focus on, especially with today's 24-hour, in-your-face social
media. Even the mainstream media is publishing directly to their webpages. You have to get behind the cacophony of all that noise
and ask, "Why?" What are the intentions here?
I believe there are still enough independent journalists who are looking further and deeper. But clearly there are those who are
hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for the current president and those who are going to defend him to the hilt. I
was not surprised at all that Trump won. A significant percentage of the American electorate were looking for something different.
Dennis Bernstein : Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie
Sanders.
Thomas Drake: That would have been an interesting race, to have Bernie vs. Trump. Sanders was appealing, especially to
young audiences. He was raising legitimate issues.
Dennis Bernstein: In Clinton, they had a known quantity who supported the national security state.
Thomas Drake:The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central
to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream
media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels
of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority."
Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected
president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized.
I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater.
What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price.
Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the
uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves?
"Raw Executive Authority" means Totalitarianism/Fascism.
exiled off mainstreet , December 7, 2017 at 4:23 pm
Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems
to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as
much in the fascist deep-state bag.
It is highly encouraging to know that a great many good and decent men and women Americans are 100% supportive of Mr, Randy
Credico as he prepares for his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Remember all those standing right there beside
you, speak what rightly needs to be spoken, and make history Mr. Credico!
jaycee , December 7, 2017 at 3:56 pm
The intensification of panic/hysteria was obviously triggered by the shock election of Trump. Where this is all heading is
on display in Australia, as the government is writing legislation to "criminalise covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors
that fall short of espionage but are intended to interfere with our democratic systems and processes or support the intelligence
activities of a foreign government." The legislation will apparently be accompanied by new requirements of public registration
of those deemed "foreign agents". (see http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/07/auch-d07.html
).
This will be an attack on free speech, free thought, and political freedoms, justified by an orchestrated hysteria which ridiculously
assumes a "pure" political realm (i.e. the "homeland") under assault by impure foreign agents and their dirty ideas. Yes, that
is a fascist construct and the liberal establishment will see it through, not the alt-right blowhards.
mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm
How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read,
but not to live in!
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:48 am
Actually Mike, the book was a prophesy but you aren't seen nothing yet. You me and the rest of the posters here may well find
ourselves going for a visit to room 101 yet.
fudmier , December 7, 2017 at 4:42 pm
Those who govern (527 of them) at the pleasure of the constitution are about to breach the contract that entitles them to govern.
Limiting the scope of information allowed to those who are the governed, silencing the voices of those with concerns and serious
doubts, policing every word uttered by those who are the governed, as well as abusing the constitutional privilege of force and
judicial authority, to deny peaceful protests of the innocents is approaching the final straw.
The governors and their corporate sponsors have imposed on those the governors govern much concern. Exactly the condition that
existed prior to July 4, 1776, which elicited the following:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political bands which connected them
with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's
God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to
the separation.
Those who govern (527 of them and the puppet master oligarch behind them) will make certain that there's no support for the
next declaration. There's no respect to the opinions of the mankind, what matters is keeping the current status quo in place and
further advance it by silencing the independent media.
Maybe when the next "Mother of all bubbles" come, there's an opportunity for the mankind to be heard, but it's doubtful. What
has taken place during the last bubble is that the rich has gotten richer and the poor, well, you know the routine.
Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter.
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:44 am
Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in
the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of
shock and disbelief.
Trump's election has also shown us in vivid technicolour, just what is really going on in the deep state. Absolutely none of
this stuff would have come out had Clinton won and anything there was would have been covered up as though under the concrete
foundation of a tower block. However, Trump still has four years left and as a British prime minister once said, "a week is a
long time in politics". Well four more years of Trump is a hell of a lot longer so who knows what might happen in that time.
One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely
sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation
of the democracy in the US.
Christene Bartels , December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am
In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake
Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of
the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck
from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary.
Apparently, Santa isn't the only one making a list and checking it twice this year. He's going to have to share the limelight
with Karma.
Being totally controlled by intelligence agencies is probably the wildest nightmare now...
And the lie about Russian collusion has sired truths beyond such a nightmare.
Any JFK files still classified have been totally scrubbed by this point. Anything damaging
was likely destroyed long ago. Anything left is there for a purpose.
As such they they likely contain more disinformation than information at this point and
it'll be hard to tell the difference between the two.
They all had their little so-called "Democratic Club" under Obama where they all thought
that'd prepare the way for more of their corrupt agenda by putting Hillary into Office. They
know now that all the activities like RussiaPhobia, rigging of the Democratic National
Committee, etc. were all part of the plot. Just remember that Obama was highly skilled in the
totally corrupted politics of Chicago and The State of Illinois that he helped to bancrupt.
He did a good job at the same thing in Washington D.C., brought in with the help of the CIA
(who he used to work for in Chicago) and run the deficit to levels every politician agreed to
where deficits don't matter, we can print as much as we want mentality. This is why you see
China, Russia and many other countries now looking at the warmongering corruption in
Washington D.C. and saying that federal politicians if you give them enough time will implode
the U.S. from within if you give them enough rope. Now you see the current CIA Director
meeting with James Rickards because he understands that economic implosion will hit their
agenda.
Boy are you right. A Republican run Congress and Senate in 2015 when the book, _Clinton
Cash_ made the best seller list. Apparently none of them read it and just now are getting
around to looking what has to be one of the largest criminal rackets ever run within that
City.
"as the Trump investigators -- in Congress, in the Justice Department, and the legions in
the media -- begin to grow strangely silent about the entire collusion charge" "America is in
a radical state of flux, or rather in a great accounting and recalibration, ranging from
government to popular culture. Hollywood lived a lie and now is not what it was just three
weeks ago. The NFL was based on known but ignored hypocrisies and is no longer the league it
was in September. The media has put rank partisanship before truth and lost ideologically and
morally. And the lie about Russian collusion has sired truths beyond our wildest nightmares.
"
Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics
professor, and scholar of ancient warfare.
Former FBI Director James Comey, who has lied, leaked and who wrote the Hillary report weeks
before any key players, including Hillary, were interviewed, wants us to know the FBI is
"honest", "strong", and "independent". The man who leaked and connived to get a special
prosecutor wants to convince us of that.
Jim Comey is the one who had no problem with Andrew McCabe's conflicts of interest. He is
the one who disgraced his own agency. He is the one who obstructed justice by declaring Hillary
Clinton innocent which he is not permitted to do in his role. The former director is the one
who lamented not being a "stronger" man.
Comey is sanctimonious, arrogant, supercilious, and narcissistic and he's not an agent, he's
a lawyer.
... ... ...
Does anyone doubt that Mueller, who has hired Hillary donors and activist
Democrats to investigate Trump, knew about Strzok's leanings? A top spy and he didn't know?
They are simply trying to silence us with their usual diversions. Don't fall for it. We
don't have to be blindly obedient to these people.
Pete Strzok is the agent who caught Flynn lying. Set up?
What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly
Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was
until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China.
He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly
negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed
for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in
the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the
first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and
influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA
connections as well. The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information
out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.
He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all,
or is this kind of stuff pretty common for people in his field and position.
Just one day after Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I.in the Russia
investigation, reports have surfaced accusing a veteran investigator in the special probe of
sending disparaging text messages regarding President Donald Trump. The investigator was
removed from the probe a few month ..... #5FastFacts#News#BreakingNews
That damn Comey is the biggest liar and most corrupt person in the Hillary email
investigation. Actually there was no investigation, because he had already determined how she
had done nothing wrong. Pathetic. Also Mueller has set up his group of lawyers, who have all
been connected to contributing to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The damn democrats will do
anything to try to find something corrupt about President Trump. All they need to do is look
in the mirror, if they are looking for corrupt.
Obviously Rosenstein didn't think the DoJ could do the job since he scrambled to appoint a
special counsel at the first opportunity after Comey leaked the memo. Trey Gowdy is one of
the most honest Congressmen in the HoR but he's seemingly a little naive at times. He wants
to believe the best about his colleagues and friends. The facts have to be in his face before
he sees the truth. He's only now beginning to see the light about Mueller, I think.
the f.b.i. just like the i.r.s. the e.p.a. , homeland security and many more govt.
organisations that at one time worked for the very citizens that pay them but now they are
all politicized , even weaponized to be used as a tool against one's political rivals ,
thanks Obummer !! who did not start or do this all on his own but did carry the ball down the
road further than any other before him
FBI your garbage thanks to the Clinton's. I hope to live for 30 more years and your shit
to me. Now I understand why we need rights to guns . To fight you criminals in my government.
I hate liberals but I know some conservatives are just as nasty . McCain is my top choice for
Hillary bent .
I don't think there is an impartial person in the entire world... And I mean that
literally... Everyone from England to Australia to Japan to South Africa is as passionate
about this Trump issue as anyone here in the US.
If Casey and Muller are an example of NO FINER INSTITUTION AND NO FINER PEOPLE THAN THE
FBI..." REALLY? so why are all the PROBER'S HILLARY DONATORS? -----> Wray is a deep state
criminal just like Comey and Mueller
The FBI agent fired by Mueller for sending Anti-Trump text messages was IN charge of the
Russia probe and even asked Micheal Flynn questions. So could it be that this was all a set up
against Trump? More secrets keep unravelling in the Mueller probe, and we'll keep updating you
on this story.
Seeker, Mr. Strzok needs to have a prolonged interrogation done on him , until the lasi
little tidbit of his machinations are wrung out of him until it is a sure bet that he has
nothing left to give up. Stzrok has good friends who invented sure fire techniques that have
guaranteed results. A Thousand Cuts comes to mind ! ! ! Of course that can not happen so let
Hillary in on the scuttlebut that Stzrok is going to rat out everbody in order to save His
behind. In no time flat Mr Stzrok will throw a JIMMY HOFFA ! ! ! ! ! That Hairy , Bull Dagger
, Pussy Hat Wearin , P U S S Y P O S S E of Hillary's is Ruthless ! ! ! ! ! Thank You Seeker
jeebs out
Enjoyed you explanation of neocons. I realized, some years back, we need to change the
Department of Defense to the Department of Offense. I suppose we could rename Homeland
Security to Dept. of Defense, but they are actuating an offensive war on us and our freedoms.
Maybe stop poking our noses in other peoples business and we could eliminate both
departments. So ... what do we call a conservative that is hawkish on Peace? A normal, well
balanced, human being? Haven't seen one of those hanging out around our capitol in a
while.
"... The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server. ..."
"... As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan. ..."
"... The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post stories. ..."
"... In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13. ..."
"... A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?" ..."
"... Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season. ..."
EXCLUSIVE – Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that
the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary
Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence
at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this
year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a
number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."
The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He
participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just
days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution
of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email
server.
As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various
agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John
Brennan.
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Stzrok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project
was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, D-Calif., has sought documents and
witnesses from the Department of Justice and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier
played in the move to place a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance.
Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of
that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant
suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the
House probe into the dossier.
In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who
has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions –
to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.
While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the
Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators. The denial
of access to Strzok was instead predicated, sources said, on broad "personnel" grounds.
When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for
various witnesses and documents – formally recommended to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held
in contempt of Congress. Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein
as recently as last Wednesday.
That turned out to be 12 days after DOJ and FBI had made Strzok available to the Senate
Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own parallel investigation into the allegations
of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
Contempt citations?
Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now
directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI
director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all os his outstanding requests for
documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a
resolution on the contempt citations before year's end.
"We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this
explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director
[Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview," Nunes said in a statement.
Early Saturday afternoon, after Strzok's texts were cited in published reports by the New
York Times and the Washington Post – and Fox News had followed up with inquiries about
the department's refusal to make Strzok available to House investigators – the Justice
Department contacted the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan to establish a date for Strzok's
appearance before House Intelligence Committee staff, along with two other witnesses long
sought by the Nunes team.
Those witnesses are FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI officer said to have
handled Christopher Steele, the British spy who used Russian sources to compile the dossier for
Fusion GPS. The official said to be Steele's FBI handler has also appeared already before the
Senate panel.
The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House
interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post
stories.
In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec.
13.
The Justice Department maintains that it has been very responsive to the House intel panel's
demands, including private briefings for panel staff by senior DOJ and FBI personnel and the
production of several hundred pages of classified materials available in a secure reading room
at DOJ headquarters on Oct. 31.
Sources said Speaker Ryan has worked quietly behind the scenes to try to resolve the clash
over dossier-related evidence and witnesses between the House intel panel on the one hand and
DOJ and FBI on the other. In October, however, the speaker took the unusual step of saying
publicly that the two agencies were "stonewalling" Congress.
All parties agree that some records being sought by the Nunes team belong to categories of
documents that have historically never been shared with the committees that conduct oversight
of the intelligence community.
Federal officials told Fox News the requested records include "highly sensitive raw
intelligence," so sensitive that officials from foreign governments have emphasized to the U.S.
the "potential danger and chilling effect" it could place on foreign intelligence sources.
Justice Department officials noted that Nunes did not appear for a document-review session
that his committee's ranking Democrat, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., attended, and once
rejected a briefing by an FBI official if the panel's Democratic members were permitted to
attend.
Sources close to the various investigations agreed the discovery of Strzok's texts raised
important questions about his work on the Clinton email case, the Trump-Russia probe, and the
dossier matter.
"That's why the IG is looking into all of those things," a Justice Department official told
Fox News on Saturday.
A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about
the dossier?"
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel, said: "Immediately upon learning of the
allegations, the Special Counsel's Office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation."
Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its
relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the
height of the campaign season.
The "Bull Dog" of the House has a grave warning for Robert Mueller.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), known for his tough "prosecutor" persona, sits on the House
Intelligence Committee. The Committee on Saturday
threatened to hold the FBI and Department of Justice in contempt of Congress for
withholding information related to the removal of FBI agent Peter Strzok from Robert Mueller's
Russia investigation.
Rep. Gowdy told Fox News that the Special Counsel faces "integrity" problems after the
revelation that Strzok's removal was due to exchanging anti-Trump text messages with FBI lawyer
Lisa Page–with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair.
"We met with the
department of justice and they have to go through the texts," Gowdy said.
He then explained the Intelligence Committee's interest in the Strzok text messages.
"We are not entitled to them, nor do we have an interest in purely personal texts. We are
very interested in both anti-Trump and/or pro-Clinton texts . Because, as he made reference
to, he was a very important agent in her investigation, also in the ongoing Russian related
investigation, perhaps the decision for Comey to change the wording in a statement."
Gowdy's remark about "wording in a statement" referred to reports that Strzok
encouraged former FBI director James Comey to describe Hillary Clinton's private email
server actions as "extremely careless" rather than "grossly negligent." The latter term carries
legal weight with potential criminal penalties while the former does not.
Gowdy continued: "He is super important and people have a right to know whether agents are
biased one way or another. The department is going to go through the texts been going to make
them available to us as soon as they can." Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum then asked Gowdy if
he still has confidence in the Mueller probe, to which the South Carolina lawmaker replied.
"I do, but I got to confess to you, and I understand people who think I'm wrong. I got an
email last night from a friend back home saying, 'Look, Gowdy, let go of the prosecutor
stuff.' I still think that Mueller can produce a product that we all have confidence in, but
things like this, make it really difficult -- the perception is, is every bit as important as
the reality, and if the perception is, you're employing people who are biased, it makes us
really difficult for those of us that would like to defend the integrity of former
prosecutors."
Gowdy's comments echo the sentiments of many Americans, who question the integrity of agents
that have investigated two presidential campaigns, but apparently favor one over the other.
"... The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump's campaign and Russia. ..."
"... Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague. ..."
"... House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate. ..."
"... The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. [ ] ..."
"... Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier. ..."
"... Fox News' James Rosen also reveals Strzok played a key role in agreeing to pay ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele $50,000 to find evidence to further support the dossier's explosive claims. FBI officials were uncomfortable with the validity of Steele's findings, yet they moved forward with FISA surveillance anyways. ..."
Joshua Caplan – In yet another blow to Mueller's investigation
into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the special counsel was
forced to fire a top FBI agent after possible anti-Trump text messages were discovered.
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his
investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general
began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political
views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered
one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped
lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her
private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between
President Trump's campaign and Russia.
In August, ABC News reported that Strzok quit Team Mueller for unknown reasons. "It's
unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators
and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of his law enforcement career working
counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised by government officials who spoke
with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources division," reported Mike
Levine.
Late Saturday night, we learn the Department of Justice has launched a review of Peter
Stzrok's role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's
Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email
investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who
was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after
Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
Reacting to Strzok's 'anti-Trump,' texts, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes
(R-CA)
said , "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us
this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy
Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview."
Strzok played a key role in analyzing the infamous 'Trump dossier,' supplied by shady
research firm Fusion GPS. The now disgraced FBI agent used disproven elements of the dossier to
spy on members of the Trump campaign.
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project
was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. [ ] Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months
of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant
suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the
House probe into the dossier.
Fox News' James Rosen also reveals Strzok played a key role in agreeing to pay ex-MI6
agent Christopher Steele $50,000 to find evidence to further support the dossier's explosive
claims. FBI officials were uncomfortable with the validity of Steele's findings, yet they moved
forward with FISA surveillance anyways.
Peter Strzok Carried On An Affair With Andrew McCabe's Lawyer, Lisa Page, While Plotting The
Downfall Of President Donald Trump (Lisa Page Seen Walking Behind McCabe.) Andrew McCabe Is The
Acting FBI Director Who Said "First We F*ck Flynn, Then We F*ck Trump."
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his
investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general
began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political
views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered
one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped
lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her
private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between
President Trump's campaign and Russia. But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr.
Mueller's investigation to the F.B.I.'s human resources department, where he has been stationed
since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages
in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways
that could appear critical of Mr. Trump.
In a statement to the New York Times, Strzok lawyer said"we are aware of the allegation and
are taking any and all appropriate steps."
In August, ABC News reported that Strzok quit
Team Mueller for unknown reasons. "It's unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of
nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of
his law enforcement career working counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised
by government officials who spoke with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources
division," reported Mike Levine.
Now this
After new details emerged about Strzok's firing, the Washington Post revealed the Justice Department
launched an investigation into "communications between certain individuals." Details of the
mystery probe will be revealed "promptly upon completion of the review of them,' said the
Justice Department. Late Saturday night, we learn the Department of Justice has launched a
review of Peter Stzrok's role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's
Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email
investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI
who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year,
after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a
number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year." [
] He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 –
just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend
prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private
email server.
Reacting to Strzok's 'anti-Trump,' texts, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes
(R-CA)
said , "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us
this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy
Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview."
This is huge. Read the thread below for the complete context. Peter Strzok was knee deep
in the entire mess!
Hillary investigation, Hillary interview. Cheryl Mills interview and immunity deal. Weiner's
laptop. Trump Dossier, and Russian collusion. All of these investigations are totally
compromised.
https://www.citizenfreepres...
All they did was their best to destroy evidence, bury evidence and deflect any kind of
real investigation of Hilabeast and team....and everybody knows it on the Hill.
So what are you waiting for asleep at the wheel Sessionns.... ? and any other decent
politician.....well....yeah, obviously those don't exist.....
This is crazy how much more corrupt can this get WTF is Session & Wray doing. Then
Mueller puts this guy on his team, as the Lead FBI , as if he didn't know he was a
compromised dirtbag.
Like how Mueller hide it from everyone for 3 months why he was demoted, and they want to
pretend they the honest brokers just looking for the truth and facts/s
Dirty cop Mueller and his team sycophants trying take down the President United States on
some trumped up bull, turn this country into joke and do irreparable damage.
While he did nothing scratch his old balls while Hil & Obama sold out to the
Russians.
"'Review of' FBI Official's Role in Clinton Email Investigation"
Huh? The the entire thing "investigation" is and has been, from Day 1, nothing more than a no
holds barred attack on not only the legally elected POTUS DJT, but equally against his
supporters.
This is a simply a brilliant article. Probably the best written on the subject so far. Kudos to Max Blumenthal
Thinks tanks are really ideological tanks -- formidable weapon in propaganda wars that crush everything on its way. And taken
together far right think tanks financed by defense sector or intelligence agencies are really a shadow far right political party with
its own neocon agenda. Actually subverting the will of American people (who elected Trump) for more peaceful relations (aka detente)
with Russia in favor of interest of weapon manufactures and the army of "national security parasites".
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers those think tanks decides to create a fake
narrative and blame Russians. Is not this a classic variant of projection ?
The slow strangulation of the US MSM means the crisis of confidence. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and
is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or
opposition, well, this is a sign of of degradation of the ruling elite. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of
solutions to social problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and
status, as well as intelligence agencies spying on everybody.
Now all those well paid ( and sometimes even talented) war propagandist intend to substitute the real crisis of neoliberalism in
the USA demonstrated during the recent Presidential Elections for the artificial problem of Russian meddling. And they are succeeding
in this unfair and evil substitution. The also manage to "poison the well" -- relation between two nations were now at the
level probably lower then during Cold War (when many Russians were sympathetic to the USA). I think 70% of Democratic voters now
are convinced the Russia was meddling in the USA election and about 30% of Republican voters also think so. For the creators of
'artificial reality" such numbers signify big success. A very big success to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos ..."
"... The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media ..."
"... A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe." ..."
"... Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force. ..."
"... Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs. ..."
"... Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease. ..."
"... In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending." ..."
"... Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran. ..."
"... Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. ..."
"... Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news. ..."
"... Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them. ..."
"... The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal. ..."
"... The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents. ..."
"... In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record. ..."
"... When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent. ..."
"... Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie. ..."
"... The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits. ..."
"... Dr. Strangelove ..."
"... It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations. ..."
Nearly a year after the presidential election, the scandal over accusations of Russian political interference in the 2016 election
has gone beyond Donald Trump and reached into the nebulous world of online media. On November 1, Congress held hearings on "Extremist
Content and Russian Disinformation Online." The proceedings saw executives from Facebook, Twitter and Youtube subjected to tongue-lashings
from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who howled about Russian online trolls "spread[ing] stories about abuse of black
Americans by law enforcement."
In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who
had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling,
appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber.
Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos.
"Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," he proclaimed. "America's war with itself has already begun. We
all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations
and easily transform us into the Divided States of America."
Next, Watts suggested a government-imposed campaign of media censorship: "Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing
on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced: silence the guns and the barrage will
end."
The censorious overtone of Watts' testimony was unmistakable. He demanded that government news inquisitors drive dissident media
off the internet and warned that Americans would spear one another with bayonets if they failed to act. And not one member of Congress
rose to object. In fact, many echoed his call for media suppression in the House and Senate hearings, with Democrats like Sen. Dianne
Feinstein and
Rep. Jackie Speier agreeing the most vehemently. The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal
lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of
media -- including content that amplified the message of progressive causes like Black Lives Matter.
Details of exactly what transpired vis a vis Russia and the U.S. in social media in 2016 are still emerging. This year, the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence published a declassified version of the intelligence community's report on "Assessing
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," written by CIA, FBI and NSA, with its central conclusion that Russian
efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine
the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."
To be sure, there is ample evidence that Russian-linked trolls have attempted to exploit wedge issues on social media platforms.
But the impact of these schemes on real-world events appears to have been exaggerated. According to
Facebook's data
, 56 percent of Russian-linked ads appeared after the 2016 presidential election, and another 25 percent "were never shown to
anyone." The ads were said to have "reached" over 100 million people, but that assumes that Facebook users did not scroll through
or otherwise ignore them, as they do with most ads. Content emanating from "Russia-linked" sources on YouTube, meanwhile, managed
to rack up hit totals in the hundreds , not
exactly a viral smash.
Facebook posts traced to the infamous Internet Research Agency troll factory in Russia amounted to only 0.0004 percent of total
content that appeared on the social network. (Some of these posts
targeted "animal
lovers with memes of adorable puppies," while another hawked an LGBT-themed "
Buff Bernie coloring book for Berniacs.") According
to its " deliberately
broad" review , Twitter found that only 0.74 percent of its election-related tweets were "Russian-linked." Google, for its part,
documented a grand total of $4,700 of "Russian-linked
ad spending" during the 2016 election cycle. While some have argued that the Russian-linked ads were micro-targeted, and could have
shifted key electoral voting blocs, these ads appeared in a media climate awash in a multi-billion dollar deluge of political ad
spending from both established parties and dark money super PACs.
However, a blitz of feverish corporate media coverage and tension-filled congressional hearings has convinced a whopping
82 percent of Democrats
that "Russian-backed" social media content played a central role in swinging the 2016 election. Russian meddling has even earned
comparisons by lawmakers to Pearl Harbor, to "acts of war," and by Hillary Clinton to the
attacks of 9/11
. And in an inadvertent way, these overblown comparisons were apt.
As during the aftermath of 9/11, the fallout from Russiagate has spawned a multimillion-dollar industry of pundits and self-styled
experts eager to exploit the frenetic atmosphere for publicity and profits. Many of these figures have emerged out of the swamp that
flowed from the war on terror and are gravitating toward the growing Russia fearmongering industrial complex in search of new opportunities.
Few of these characters have become as prominent as Clint Watts.
So who is Watts, and how did he emerge seemingly from nowhere to become the star congressional witness on Russian meddling?
Dubious Expertise, Impressive Salesmanship
A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy
Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian
bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his
employers at FPRI
hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential
election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe."
Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits,
including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint
Terror Task Force.
Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs
as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship
from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs.
Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to
popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease.
Before Congress, a String of Deceptions
Back on March 30, as the narrative of Russian meddling gathered momentum, Watts made his first appearance before the Senate Select
Intelligence Committee.
Seated at the front of a hearing room packed with reporters, Watts introduced Congress to concepts of Russian meddling that were
novel at the time, but which have become part of Beltway newspeak. His testimony turned out to be a signal moment in Russiagate,
helping transition the narrative of the scandal from Russia-Trump collusion to the wider issue of online influence.
In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence
of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, "
The Good and The Bad
of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its
human rights abuses , sectarianism and
off-and-on alliances
with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian
government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as
"an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending."
Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later,
urging the
U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms,
should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression,"
he wrote. In another paper, Watts
asked
, "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia
and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought
to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran.
The premise of these op-eds should have raised serious concerns about Watts and his colleagues, and even questions about their
sanity. They had marketed themselves as national security experts, yet they were lobbying the US to "befriend" the allies of Al Qaeda,
the group that brought down the Twin Towers. (Ahrar al-Sham was founded by Abu Khalid al-Suri, a Madrid bombing suspect who was
named by Spanish
investigators as Osama bin-Laden's courier.) Anyone cynical enough to put such ideas into public circulation should have expected
a backlash. But when the inevitable wave of criticism came, Watts dismissed it all as a Russian bot attack.
Addressing the Senate panel, Watts said that those who took to social media to mock and criticize his Foreign Affairs article
were, in fact, Russian bots. He provided no evidence to support the claim, and
a look at his single tweet promoting the
article shows that he was criticized only once (by @Navsteva, a Twitter user known for defending the Syrian government against regime
change proponents, not an automated bot). Nevertheless, Watts painted the incident as proof that Russia had revived a Cold War information
warfare strategy of "Active Measures," which was supposedly aimed at "crumbl[ing] democracies from the inside out [by] creating political
divisions."
Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in
American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active
measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. In fact, the only piece of proof he offered (in a Daily Beast
transcript of his testimony) was a
single link
to an RT article that factually documented
a squabble between Black Lives Matter protesters and white supremacists -- an incident that had been widely covered by other outlets,
from the
Houston
Chronicle to the
Washington Post . Watts did not explain how this one report by RT sowed any chaos, or whether it had any effect at all on actual
events.
Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his
opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S.
airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence
operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In
reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news.
In the articles
cited
by Watts during his testimony, neither
RT nor
Sputnik made
any reference to "terrorists" taking over Incirlik Airbase. Rather, these outlets compiled tweets by Turkish activists and sourced
their coverage to a report by Hurriyet, one of Turkey's largest mainstream papers. In fact, the incident was reported by virtually
every major Turkish news organization (
here ,
here ,
here and
here ). What's more,
the events appeared to have taken place approximately as RT and Sputnik reported it, with protesters readying to protect the airbase
from a coup while Turkish police sealed the base's entrances and exits. A look at RT's coverage shows the network even downplayed
the severity of the event,
citing a tweet by a U.S.-based national security analysis group stating, "We are not finding any evidence of a coup or takeover."
This stands entirely at odds with Watts' claim that RT exaggerated the incident to spark chaos.
Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including
Politico . Democratic
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
echoed Watts'
false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim
Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent,
reproduced
Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization
or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them.
Questions emailed to Watts via his employers at FPRI received no reply.
Another Watts Deception, This Time Discredited in Court
During his Senate testimony, Watts introduced a second, and even more distorted claim of Trump employing Russian "active measures"
to attack his political foes. The details of the story are complex and difficult for a passive audience to absorb, which is probably
why Watts has been able to get away with pushing it for so long.
Watts' testimony was the culmination of a mainstream media deception that forced an aspiring reporter out of his job, drove him
to contemplate suicide, and ultimately prompted him to take matters into his own hands by suing his antagonists.
The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly
from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi.
The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email
by Blumenthal.
The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service
funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran
scrubbed
his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar,
a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents.
In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation.
With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the
nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national
platform to
highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several
months fighting to correct the record.
When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he
offered
Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald
had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting
Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran
once again as a foreign agent.
When Watts revived Eichenwald's bogus version of events in his Senate testimony, Moran began to spiral into the depths of depression.
He even entertained thoughts of suicide. But he ultimately decided to fight, filing a lawsuit against Newsweek's parent company for
defamation and libel.
Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's
articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts
made before the Senate was also a whopping lie.
The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a
cable news star, with
invites
from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received
coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become
the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits.
FPRI, a Pro-War Think Tank Founded by White Supremacist Eugenicists
Before he emerged in the spotlight of Russiagate, Watts languished at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, earning little name
recognition outside the insular world of national security pundits. Based in Philadelphia, the FPRI has been
described by journalist Mark Ames as "one of the looniest (and spookiest) extreme-right think tanks since the early Cold War
days, promoting 'winnable' nuclear war, maximum confrontation with Russia, and attacking anti-colonialism as dangerously unworkable."
Daniel Pipes, the arch-Islamophobe pundit and former FPRI fellow, offered a
similar characterization
of the think tank, albeit from an alternately opposed angle. "Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign
policy," Pipes said in a 1991 address to FPRI. He added that the think tank's staff "is not shy about the use of force; were we members
of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led
the charge."
FPRI was co-founded by Robert Strausz-Hupé, a far-right Austrian emigre, with help from conservative corporations and covert funding
from the CIA From the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, Strausz-Hupé gathered a "Philadelphia School" of Cold War hardliners
to develop a strategy for protracted war against the Soviet Union. His brain trust included FPRI co-founder Stefan Possony, an Austrian
fascist who was a board member of the World Anti-Communist League, the international fascist organization
described by journalists
Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson as a network of "those responsible for death squads, apartheid, torture, and the extermination
of European Jewry." True to his fascist roots, Possony co-authored a racialist tract, "
The Geography of Intellect
," that argued that blacks were biologically inferior and that the people of the global South were "genetically unpromising."
Strausz-Hupé seized on Possony's racialist theories to inveigh against anti-colonial movements led by "populations incapable of rational
thought."
While clamoring for a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union -- and acknowledging that their preferred strategy would cause
mass casualties in American cities -- Strausz-Hupé and his band of hawks developed a monomaniacal obsession with Russian propaganda.
By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, they were stricken with paranoia, arguing on the pages of the New York Times that filmmaker
Stanley Kubrick was a Soviet useful idiot whose film, Dr. Strangelove , advanced "the principal Communist objectives to
drive a wedge between the American people and their military leaders."
Ultimately, Strausz-Hupé's fanaticism cost him an ambassadorship, as Sen. William Fulbright scuttled his appointment to serve
in Morocco on the grounds that his "hard line, no compromise" approach to communism could shatter the delicate balance of diplomacy.
Today, he is remembered fondly
on FPRI's website as "an intellectual and intellectual impresario, administrator, statesman, and visionary." His militaristic
legacy continues thanks to the prolific presence -- and bellicose politics -- of Watts.
The Paranoid Style
This year, FPRI dedicated its annual gala to honoring Watts' success in mainstreaming the narrative of Russian online meddling.
Since I first transcribed a Soundcloud recording of Watts' keynote address, the file has been
mysteriously scrubbed
from the internet. It is unclear what prompted the removal, however, it is easy to understand why Watts would not want his comments
examined by a critical listener. His speech offered a window into a paranoid mindset with a tendency for overblown, unverifiable
claims about Russian influence.
While much of the speech was a rehash of Watts' Senate testimony, he spent an unusual amount of time describing the threat he
believed Russian intelligence agents posed to his own security. "If you speak up too much, you'll get knocked down," Watts said,
claiming that think tank fellows who had been too vocal about Russian meddling had seen their laptops "burned up by malware."
"If someone rises up in prominence, they will suddenly be -- whoof! -- swiped down out of nowhere by some crazy disclosure from
their email," Watts added, referring to unspecified Russian retaliatory measures. As usual, he didn't produce concrete evidence or
offer any examples.
"Anybody remember the reporters that were outed after the election? Or maybe they tossed up a question to the Clinton campaign
and they were gone the next day?" he asked his audience. "That's how it goes."
It was unclear which reporters Watts was referring to, or what incident he could have possibly been alluding to. He offered no
details, only innuendo about the state of siege Kremlin actors had supposedly imposed on him and his freedom-fighting colleagues.
He even predicted he'd be "hacked and cyber attacked when this recording comes out."
According to Watts, Russian "active measures" had singlehandedly augmented Republican opinion in support of the Kremlin. "It is
the greatest success in influence operations in the history of the world," Watts confidently proclaimed. He contrasted Russia's success
with his own failures as an American agent of influence working for the U.S. military, a saga in his career that remains largely
unexamined.
Domestic Agent of Influence
"I worked in influence operations in counter-terrorism for 15 years," Watts boasted to his audience at FPRI. "We didn't break
one or two percent [increase in the approval rating of US foreign policy] in fifteen years and we spent billions a year in tax dollars
doing it. I was paid off of those programs. We had almost no success throughout the Middle East."
By Watts' own admission, he had been part of a secret propaganda campaign aimed at manipulating the opinions of Middle Easterners
in favor of the hostile American military operating in their midst. And he failed massively, wasting "billions a year in tax dollars."
Given his penchant for deception, this may have been yet another tall tale aimed at burnishing his image as an internet era James
Bond. But if the story was even partially true, Watts had inadvertently exposed a severe scandal that, in a fairer world, might have
triggered congressional hearings.
Whatever took place, it appears that Watts and his Cold Warrior colleagues are now waging another expensive influence operation,
this time directed against the American public. By deploying deceptions, half-truths and hyperbole with the full consent of Congress
and in collaboration with the mainstream press, they have managed to convince a majority of Americans that Russia is "trying to knock
us down and take us over," as Watts remarked at the FPRI's gala.
In just a matter of months, public consent for an unprecedented array of hostile measures against Russia, from sanctions and
consular raids to arbitrary
crackdowns on Russian-backed news organizations, has been assiduously manufactured.
It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had
approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called
the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media
outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and
ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations.
In the next installment of this investigation, we will see how a collection of cranks, counter-terror retreads and online vigilantes
overseen by the German Marshall Fund have waged a search-and-destroy mission against dissident media under the guise of combating
Russian "active measures," and how the mainstream press has enabled their censorious agenda.
His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump.
Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext
to discredit and remove Mueller, too.
Notable quotes:
"... The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in his statement condemning Clinton's email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller. ..."
"... His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump. Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext to discredit and remove Mueller, too. ..."
"... When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory. Republicans in Congress, everyone believed, would never sit still for such a blatant cover-up ..."
"... In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line, and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them. Earlier this month, it was reported that Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank , an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network. ..."
The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in
his statement condemning Clinton's email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller.
His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump.
Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext
to discredit and remove Mueller, too.
The notion that a law-enforcement official should be disqualified for privately expressing partisan views is a novel one, and
certainly did not trouble Republicans last year, when Rudy Giuliani was boasting on television about his network of friendly agents.
Yet in the conservative media, Mueller and Comey have assumed fiendish personae of almost Clintonian proportions.
When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority
who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory. Republicans in Congress, everyone believed, would never sit still
for such a blatant cover-up .
Josh Blackman, a conservative lawyer, argued that Trump could remove the special counsel, but "make no mistake: Mueller's firing
would likely accelerate the end of the Trump administration." Texas representative Mike McCaul declared in July, "If he fired Bob
Mueller, I think you'd see a tremendous backlash, response from both Democrats but also House Republicans." Such a rash move "could
be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency," Senator Lindsey Graham proclaimed.
In August, members of both parties began drawing up legislation to prevent Trump from sacking Mueller. "The Mueller situation
really gave rise to our thinking about how we can address the current situation," explained Republican senator Thom Tillis, a sponsor
of one of the bills. By early autumn, the momentum behind the effort had slowed; by Thanksgiving, Republican interest had melted
away. "I don't see any heightened kind of urgency, if you're talking about some of the reports around Flynn and others," Tillis said
recently. "I don't see any great risk."
In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line,
and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them. Earlier this month, it was reported that
Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank , an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network.
John Dowd, a lawyer for Trump, recently floated the wildly expansive defense that a "president cannot obstruct justice, because
he is the chief law-enforcement officer." Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett called the investigation "illegitimate and corrupt"
and declared that "the FBI has become America's secret police." Graham is now calling for a special counsel to investigate "Clinton
email scandal, Uranium One, role of Fusion GPS, and FBI and DOJ bias during 2016 campaign" -- i.e., every anti-Mueller conspiracy
theory. And perhaps as ominously, Trump's allies have been surfacing fallback defenses. Yes, "some conspiratorial quid pro quo between
somebody in the Trump campaign and somebody representing Vladimir Putin" is "possible," allowed
Wall Street Journal columnist
Holman Jenkins, but "we would be stupid not to understand that other countries have a stake in the outcome of our elections and,
by omission or commission, try to advance their interests. This is reality." The notion of a criminal conspiracy by a hostile nation
to intervene in the election in return for pliant foreign policy has gone from unthinkable to blasé, an offense only to naïve bourgeois
morality.
It is almost a maxim of the Trump era that the bounds of the unthinkable continuously shrink. The capitulation to Moore was a
dry run for the coming assault on the rule of law.
Could someone help me understand what is so "populist" about this presidency?
After the Senate passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut for the rich (which Trump himself stands
to benefit from handsomely), Trump went off to a $100,000-a-plate fundraiser at hedge fund
manager Steve Schwartzman's Manhattan apartment. Is that populist?
Trump appointed a telecom lobbyist to head the FCC and he has proceeded to give AT&T,
Verizon and Comcast their wish list. Is that populist?
He's nominated a pharmaceutical lobbyist to head Health & Human Services. Is that
populist?
Nothing populist has come out of this presidency. He has done everything any other
Republican would do, only with a big helping of racism and bigotry piled on top.
If he's doing what he said he would do on trade, then why is NAFTA still around? Also,
remember the 35% border adjustment tax he said he was going to slap on foreign goods? He
dropped that the same week that he tweeted about transgender people in the military (probably
to hide that he wasn't going though with the former). About the only thing you can claim is
that he dropped us out of the TPP, which was always going to be a long shot anyway because of
the number of nations involved.
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over
relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information
in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.
This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger
Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier
in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.
What I fail to understand is why Democrats are sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly
elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with
Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.
"... What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China. ..."
"... He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); ..."
"... he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well. ..."
"... He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved in CI activities targeting Russian and China. ..."
What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his
father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus
on Russia and China.
He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed
HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000
for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen);
he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important
and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well.
The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential
in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.
He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all, or is this kind of stuff pretty
common for people in his field and position.
I know nothing of him other than what is in the press but his partisan interference in investigations appears to be a blot
on the honor of the FBI but then I am old fashioned. pl
WJ,
I first learned about this man from a comment of David Habakkuk (in an earlier post) and was curious to learn more about him.
As you point out, ´internet is not your friend´ in his case. Your comment gives so far the most information about his doings.
Thank you. According to David Habakkuk that surname is polish, but it possibly be other slavic origin as well ( possibly Jidish
?)
Given Strzok's career, I wouldn't expect to find much, if anything, about him on the internet. If he spent his career working
"in the shadows," he rightly would have stayed off the internet. He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved
in CI activities targeting Russian and China. Anyone actively working in a classified environment would be grossly negligent
to allow himself to be plastered all over the internet. Why do you think I still use a light cover of TTG just to post here years
after retiring? It's just force of habit.
I was glad to hear that Mueller banished him to HR as soon as his anti-Trump emails were discovered. If he stayed, he would
have cast an ugly shadow over the Mueller investigation. It's much like the partisan shadow extending over much of the NY FBI
office. Their pro-Trump/anti-Clinton stance was notorious. I also think the FBI should review the entire Clinton email server
file in light of this.
Don't know how bureaucracies work in DC. Remembering how placement in HR was a goal for activists. HR is obscure and unglamorous
- how is it banishment for someone with an agenda who works in the shadows?
"... False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia ..."
The news of Mike Flynn's plea agreement
with special prosecutor Robert Mueller was trumpeted on the media as if Flynn had admitted to
killing Kennedy or had unprotected sex with Vladimir Putin. But once I took time to read the
actual agreement I realized, not surprisingly, the the media lynch mob was blinded by hatred
and unwilling to think objectively or fairly about the matter. The evidence exonerates Donald
Trump of having colluded with the Russians but does expose Michael Flynn as a man of terrible
judgment when it comes to talking to the FBI. There was nothing that Flynn did with the
Russians that was wrong or improper.
Here are the key details for you to judge for yourself:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the United States of America and the
defendant, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, stipulate and agree that the following facts are true and
accurate. These facts do not constitute all of the facts known to the parties concerning the
charged offense; they are being submitted to demonstrate that sufficient facts exist that the
defendant committed the offense to which he is pleading guilty.
1. The defendant, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor
for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Campaign"), as a senior member of
President-Elect Trump's Transition Team ("Presidential Transition Team"), and as the National
Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an
interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") on January 24, 2017, in Washington,
D.C. At the time of the interview, the FBI had an open investigation into the Government of
Russia's ("Russia") efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including the
nature of any links between individuals associated with the Campaign and Russia, and whether
there was any coordination between the Campaign and Russia's efforts.
2. FLYNN's false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the
FBI's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals
associated with the Campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential
election.
False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain
from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia
"... An easy way for the government to create criminality where there is none is to make it a crime to lie to its agents, in this case the FBI, which is Deep State Central. The object of creating bogus categories of crime, naturally, is to leverage power over adversaries; to scare them. ..."
"... This kind of entrapment -- the criminalization of the act of lying to the government, in Flynn's case about a non-crime -- is facilitated under the unconstitutional Section 1001 of Title 18, in the United States Code. It makes it an offense to make " a materially false " statement to a federal official -- even when one is not under oath. ..."
"... He said, she said, he lied, she lied, dog barked, and cat miavd. Unless they prove that there was a money transfer from Russia or from Trump camp to Wiki leaks, all investigation is only waste of time, and waste of money. Actually this investigation is a crime against US Government, because it impedes the normal functioning of US government ..."
"... A weird country, the USA. Do not know of any other country that has a law against contacts with a specified other country, a law making it impossible to interfere with price settinng in the pharmaceutical industry, and a law permitting an invasion of the Netherlands, in case a USA citizen is held in The Hague for trial by the International Court, to liberate the accused. ..."
"... Flynn's sin was to think he could engage in ME diplomacy for Israel and not get caught. When he did, he got tossed under the bus so that the corrupt and savage MSM could keep screaming Russiagate while forgetting to mention that this affair is now IsraeliGate. ..."
"... That the FBI is a rogue Deep State entity and Michael Flynn is a self-aggrandizing Beltway war-monger (i.e., not decent) are not disjoint. ..."
"... Flynn only wanted to make nice with Russia as a process tactic for fueling more war in the Middle East, paid for of course by American taxpayers. Whether the FBI or the cabal of war-monger militarists whispering in Trump's ear – there are no "good guys". ..."
Retired US Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn's sin was lying
to liars , not colluding with Russians.
When he spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, following Donald Trump's 2016 election,
former National Security Advisor Flynn was discharging a perfectly legal and patriotic duty to
the electorate.
In a fit of pique, then-President Barack Obama had expelled Russian diplomats from the
United States. K. T. McFarland, Flynn's deputy in the Trump transition team, worried that
Obama's expulsion of the diplomats was aimed at " boxing Trump in
diplomatically, " making it impossible for the president to "improve relations with
Russia," a promise he ran on. For her perspicacity, McFarland has since been forced to
lawyer-up in fear for her freedom.
To defuse President Obama's spiteful maneuver, Flynn spoke to Ambassador Kislyak, the upshot
of which was that Russia "retaliated" by inviting US diplomats and their families to the
Kremlin for a New Year's bash.
A jolly good diplomatic success, wouldn't you say?
Present at the Kislyak meeting was Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law. Kushner likely
instructed Flynn to ask Russia to disrupt or delay one of the UN Security Council's favorite
pastimes: passing resolutions denouncing Israeli settlements. Kushner, however, is protected by
Daddy and the First Daughter, so getting anything on Jared will be like frisking a seal.
One clue as to the extent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's violations, here, is that
Flynn had committed no crime. Laying the cornerstone for the president-elect's promised foreign
policy -- diplomacy with Russia -- is not illegal.
Perversely, however, lying to the US Federal Government's KGB (the FBI), a liar in its own right, is illegal.
The US Government enjoys a territorial monopoly over justice. If you doubt this, pray tell
to which higher judicial authority can Flynn appeal to have his state-designated "criminal"
label reconsidered or rescinded? Where can he go to recover his standing?
Nowhere.
By legislative fiat, the government has turned this decent man and many like him into common
criminals.
An easy way for the government to create criminality where there is none is to make it a
crime to lie to its agents, in this case the FBI, which is Deep State Central. The object of
creating bogus categories of crime, naturally, is to leverage power over adversaries; to scare
them.
Likewise was Martha Stewart imprisoned -- not for the offense of insider trading, but for
lying to her inquisitors. During interrogation, the poor woman had been so intimidated, so
scared of conviction -- wouldn't you? -- that she fibbed. The
lead federal prosecutor in her case was the now-notorious James B. Comey. (See "Insider
Trading Or Information Socialism?" )
This kind of entrapment -- the criminalization of the act of lying to the government, in
Flynn's case about a non-crime -- is facilitated under the unconstitutional Section 1001 of
Title 18,
in the United States Code. It makes it an offense to make " a materially false " statement to a
federal official -- even when one is not under oath.
It's perfectly fine, however, for said official to bait and bully a private citizen into
fibbing. By such tactics, The State has created a category of crime from which a select few are
exempt.
Is this equality under the law or inequality under the law?
Section 1001 neatly accommodates a plethora of due-process violations.
Yet another tool in the Deep State toolbox is to lean on family members in order to extract
a confession. To get Flynn senior to confess, U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is purported
to have threatened Mike Flynn junior with a legal kneecapping.
Ultimately, The State has overwhelming power when compared to the limited resources and
power of an accused. The power differential between The State and an accused means he or she,
as the compromised party, will cop a plea. The Flynn
guilty plea bargain, if you will, is nothing more than a negotiated deal which subverts the
very goal of justice: the search for truth.
In the process of hammering out an agreement that pacified a bloodthirsty prosecutor,
Flynn's punishment for doing nothing wrong has been reduced. President Trump's former national
security adviser will still have to sell his home to defray the costs of a federal onslaught.
Is this the rule of law, or the law of rule? The question is a rhetorical one.
He said, she said, he lied, she lied, dog barked, and cat miavd.
Unless they prove that there was a money transfer from Russia or from Trump camp to Wiki
leaks,
all investigation is only waste of time, and waste of money.
Actually this investigation is a crime against US Government, because it impedes the normal
functioning of US government.
I fully concur with the commentary. Once the Martha Stewart case went forward and this "law"
was not challenged, my view, at that time and since, was that the yankee imperium had entered
the post-rule of law era. This is amply shown by the use this "law" has been put to. In the
end, it was creeping extra-legal fascism that destroyed the rule of law in the US, not
creeping socialism as was feared by certain elements in the '60s. The existence and
enforcement of this provision is an affront to basic decency and the rule of law, and the
legitimacy of any state which upholds such an extra-legal provision is non-existent.
Unless they prove that there was a money transfer from Russia or from Trump camp to Wiki
leaks
Even if this is the case, why should this be a big deal? It's hardly a secret that US
politicians take bribes, ahem I meant political donations, from Israel, Saudi Arabia, China
and probably many others. Before one takes this farce of selectively law enforcement
seriously there needs to be a massive cleanup of root and branch of the entire US regime
before any of this can be seen as legitimate.
Was this Ilana's piece? I could have sworn I was reading Alan Dershowitz. Which is not a good
thing. Many observers feel Zionist Alan has gone round-the-bend in his analysis.
Anyone feeling sorry for the wayward General is wasting their psychic energy. First he's
got exposure in several areas. Second, it's likely he made a great deal with Mueller. Third,
he'll probably get a pardon soon (he's a great guy you know).
So the nonsense falls on deaf ears. Flynn didn't have to lie. He did it for a specific
reason which we don't know yet. And he didn't have to deal. He could have depended on Trump
whilst not rating-out his colleagues (like Manafort). Flynn as his lawyer made
clear , "has a story to tell" because he's guilty.
So when Flynn was texting during Trump's inaugural address he was probably just tying up
lose ends in various deals, all of which were legit (sure)? Like a potential kidnapping for
his client Turkey? Maybe the FBI was complicit in compelling him to do that too. We shall
see?
A weird country, the USA.
Do not know of any other country that has a law against contacts with a specified other
country, a law making it impossible to interfere with price settinng in the pharmaceutical
industry, and a law permitting an invasion of the Netherlands, in case a USA citizen is held
in The Hague for trial by the International Court, to liberate the accused.
Flynn's sin was to think he could engage in ME diplomacy for Israel and not get caught. When
he did, he got tossed under the bus so that the corrupt and savage MSM could keep screaming
Russiagate while forgetting to mention that this affair is now IsraeliGate.
Flynn broke no laws establishing relations with Russia for the incoming president. But when
he started lobbying UN members on behalf of Israel, that's when he crossed the legal
line.
He's lucky he only got charged with lying.
But this is how politics play out in the former USA, which is nothing more than a colony
of Apartheid Israel, doing the bidding of our Israeli Masters, whether it be fighting endless
wars so that Israel can steal more land and water or continually helping Israel commit crimes
against humanity in Palestine.
I am no fan of American criminal law or its enforcement. They hardly seem to be the kind of
adjunct to the "demovracy" the US seeks to export that it will find helpful in the sales
pitch. However I am amazed that sophisticated people questioned by the FBI don't use an
equivalent to the Fifth Amendment by saying "I don't intend to lie to you but refuse to
answer any of your questions unless I am immune to prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18
[maybe adding 'except for denying an act which is itself a crime that I have been told is
being investigated']".
By the way is it entirely clear that the Logan Act didn't make what Flynn was doing
criminal, ridiculous though that would be?
I agree with much else you are saying here (though from memory, Martha Stewart's behaviour
was clearly white-collar criminal, on top of the lie, unlike Flynn's stupid and inoccuous lie
or simple misinterpretation).
ask Russia to disrupt or delay one of the UN Security Council's favorite pastimes:
passing resolutions denouncing Israeli settlements.
That is wrong on so many levels.
i. Your bare-faced lie of saying 'Security Council' instead of 'General Assembly', when
you are knowing very well that the U.S.A. is *always* vetoing anything critical of Israel in
the SC, sole exception being when former Pres. Hopey-Changey Hussein was ordering an
abstention on one late in his second term. One of his very few good acts as Pres.
ii. The implicit assumption that Israeli settlements are a good thing. I am sure that you
would enjoying it if you were to live somewhere where maniacal strangers who hate you were
trying to occupying all high positions, wandering about with automatic and semi-automatic
rifles, destroying or seizing your neighbour's (and your) houses, destroying olive groves,
and monopolising the water supply, etc.
Palestine used to have a proportionally large Christian population. In the early stages of
their departure, Israeli jews were the main driver.
Disingenuous or what?
iii. Why should the main emphasis of any contact with Russia be illegal (under
international law) jewish settlements! You cannot even say Israeli, because it is outside the
borders of Israel.
That the FBI is a rogue Deep State entity and Michael Flynn is a self-aggrandizing
Beltway war-monger (i.e., not decent) are not disjoint.
Flynn only wanted to make nice with Russia as a process tactic for fueling more war in
the Middle East, paid for of course by American taxpayers. Whether the FBI or the cabal of
war-monger militarists whispering in Trump's ear – there are no "good guys".
The frantic tone of the article shows just how much damage Flynn's testimony has done to
Trump. What Flynn tells us is that the initiative to contact the Russians came from Trump,
not the Russians. That's absolutely damning for Trump. The evidence previously available
suggested that the initiative had come from the Russians, pointing towards the possibility
that the rather naive Trump team had been more or les set up by the Russians. Now we know
that Trump solicited Russian intervention, which tends to prove that he is indeed Putin's
stooge or, even worse, the stooge of the gangsters behind Putin. That may well be the deep,
dark secret that Trump was afraid Putin would tell. The onus is now on Trump to prove that he
isn't an agent of a foreign power and the only way he can do that is to get Putin out of
Ukraine.
It's actually beyond weird; it's absolutely mind boggling. Utterly twisted. Everything of
value has been twisted and perverted beyond anyone's imagination. One huge plastic garbage
dump.
It's a huge corrupt cesspool, yet most people here see nothing but El Dorado and think
it's the Savior of the World all rolled into one.
Trump as prez narrowly beating Hillary in a scam democracy-esque "election" and congress
bowing and scraping to Netanyahu pretty much sums it all up perfectly.
The place is as full of morons as ignorant as they are arrogant, just like the goofy
looking, sounding and acting clowns who rule them. It's utterly beyond redemption.
On another note, can you comment on and/or suggest some good sources for studying the
bankers of Amsterdam of the 16th and 17th centuries, including the Dutch West India Co??
But this is how politics play out in the former USA, which is nothing more than a colony
of Apartheid Israel, doing the bidding of our Israeli Masters, whether it be fighting
endless wars so that Israel can steal more land and water or continually helping Israel
commit crimes against humanity in Palestine.
Yup. A nation of Zio-bankster cucks and that includes the vast majority of Jews as well as
goyim.
Many warned us of it when they opposed the Federal Reserve and when the Zio-Bolshie
banksters suckered the US into WW 1 & 2 on their behalf, but we never even know their
names today, and we have next to nobody telling the truth today.
continually helping Israel commit crimes against humanity in Palestine.
And elsewhere. Wherever the banksters demand control, which is nearly everywhere.
Those damned cagaderos have turned the whole planet into one big one!!
What is the problem of having contacts with Russia ?
As to the Ukraine, USA, EU and NATO should leave there.
We in Europe do not want the war NATO, USA and EU are seeking.
We want normal relations with the country we had a lot of trade with, much of which has
disappeared because of sanctions, made possible by the deaths of over 300 passengers aboard
MH17.
My country, the Netherlands, objected most to sanctions, we exported a lot to Russia, on the
day after the disaster objections had vanished.
So it was very lucky for those who wanted to impose sanctions that a plane from Schiphol
Amsterdam was hit.
Despite that Russia just has disadvantages of the disaster, and the west advantages, the
continuing investigation, that will never end, Peyton Place, does anything possible to
continue stating vague accusations against Putin.
Suspect Ukraine has been permitted to take part in the investigations.
To Mercer,
Great great article. You've created a description of events that is so absorbing and brings
up such deep anger in the reader towards the increasingly exposed psychopathic and psychotic,
that we are collectively inspired to end the influence of these creeps. Thank You!
Flynn is DIA. He's an actor in this psyop. It's not the crime that counts, it's making a
crime understandable by the audience.
Consider that Petraeus fornicated with one of his gun runners. Oh the crime! The US
Treasury is an open vault to these elite assassins – there's no law here, but that's
not a problem as far as the public will ever know. Neither is the carnage, which is all
carefully hidden from view. Deliberately destroying civilian populations is never made
obvious.
Occassionally, the FBI and the press will shame one of the royals in a carefully crafted
stage production (or tennis match) as competition naturally heats up amongst members of the
owner-ruler class. Press mockingbirds will disagree back and forth with one another only
adding necessary fuel to the drama.
The "crime" is usually an overwrought, completely specious claim of dishonesty and
sometimes a bedroom indiscretion to titillate American prurience. Taken very seriously by at
least part of the press, but ridiculed by another. The leading figure nevertheless emerges
tarnished. The CIA's Andrea Mitchell will shed a tear on NBC (as she did for hero mass
murderer Petraeus). This is an instruction for a simple minded population, including any
number of rote evangelicals.
Now Flynn's resume includes a prominent role in the post 9/11 war of terror. An
environment that doesn't have anything to do with the American sheep's warped delusions of
what the law even means. However, enourmous efforts are always made to indemnify criminal
violence through legal mechanism.
The guilded cage for American mafia member Flynn meant he killed as many people as
possible in the two major strategic theaters, started his own privateering operation once
some of the shooting quieted down, looted and cashed in as a international contractor into
imaginable wealth and is now playin himself in his own wrist slappin' psyop.
What's next is predictable. Go on to Wall Street to join an investment firm, accept
academic honors, visiting professorships, write a book and maybe even join a "peace" movement
to reduce violence – writing an op-ed for Tom's Dispatch. God speed Ó
Floinn!
This doesn't impede the normal function of Government, whatever the fuck that is. Bread
and circuses are what the Government delivers daily in darkness. Look at it this way, this
investigation is a new product off the assembly line. It's not production in a simple sense,
but the externalities are large enough that crisis and drama are a tenuous key to economic
growth.
Think of the noise as a large ignot being forged in a factory filed with fire and noise.
The end product is probably something you don't really need, so the need is created. It's
Friday, let's see what the press sluice gate intends to drown your mind with next. Here we
all are – tapping away at our keyboards and iphones in a factory with no pay. You could
say we're volunteers for the Government, something it needs to function normally.
Via Wilkipedia, coup deata is an "illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to
unseat the sitting executive."[1]
... In looser usage, as in "intelligence coup" or "boardroom coup", the term simply refers to gaining a sudden advantage on a rival.
Notable quotes:
"... Well, what if, instead of Flynn providing damning information against another member of Trump's inner circle, or against the president himself, Mueller's prosecution of Flynn is an insurance policy protecting him and his team from being dismissed by Trump? To wit, Bloomberg speculates that Flynn's guilty plea might just be the fodder the special counsel needed to protect his team from dismissal by the president. Given that calls for Trump to fire the hopelessly compromised special prosecutor have persisted since last spring, there's more than enough reason to believe that Flynn's prosecution is an end in itself. ..."
"... Equally as important, Flynn's prosecution, following so soon after the charges against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, also suggests that his investigation is making "progress" – though the logical end point of his crusade remains murky. ..."
"... "Any rational prosecutor would realize that in this political environment, laying down a few markers would be a good way of fending off criticism that the prosecutors are burning through money and not accomplishing anything," says Samuel Buell, a former federal prosecutor now at Duke Law School. ..."
"... The Flynn plea also makes it difficult for Trump to fire Mueller without inviting accusations of a cover-up and sparking a constitutional crisis, says Michael Weinstein, a former Department of Justice prosecutor now at the law firm Cole Schotz. "There would be a groundswell, it would look so objectionable, like the Saturday Night Massacre with Nixon," Weinstein says, referring to President Richard Nixon's attempt to derail the Watergate investigation in 1973 by firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox. ..."
"... Flynn's testimony might eventually help Mueller bring down Kushner or another top Trump aide, but it's hard to imagine how Flynn's word would be enough at this point. ..."
"... Flynn alone may not be enough to advance an obstruction or collusion case. Prosecutors would likely need evidence against other high-ranking Trump associates, including perhaps Jared Kushner. "Unless you've got them on tape, you're going to need a lot better witnesses than Flynn," says Raymond Banoun, a former federal prosecutor. ..."
"... Which leaves one option: Flynn's prosecution is simply an insurance policy. Flynn's guilty plea helped mollify angry Democrats who are demanding Trump's head on a platter. ..."
"... Ultimately, Mueller will be able to persevere – and the atmosphere of paranoia and mistrust he has helped foster in the West Wing will continue to hobble the Trump administration. ..."
"... Larry Nichols was the architect who said the basis of the Clinton crime family's power model is to own the prosecution if not the entire justice chain in the jurisdiction. Then it was Arkansas later DC. ..."
"... This was an attempted coup d'état as the most ex excellent Matt Bracken points out. ..."
"... After the donors (corporate kelptocrats) get their tax "reform", the mainstream Republicans will jump on the Mueller band wagon and join the Democrats in dumping Trump. National politicians are all crooks, and they are scared shitless to have an unpredictable loose cannon in the Oval Office, willing to call them out at anytime. ..."
"... This guy Bruce Ohr was recently demoted from Deputy Director of DOJ, and is suspected of having contacts early in the year with Fusion GPS and personally with Chris Steele, author of the DNC disinformation golden shower dossier. If government officials were involved in manufacturing that, then we really do have an anti-Trump deep state conspiracy. ..."
"... It is hard to know if Mueller has any good cards or not. I don't think a guilty plea over lying to FBI makes for a good witness in court, so I say you got nothing Mueller, time to call. ..."
"... I think at best he is going to pull a stunt by making his investigation public to smear Trump with rumor and innuendo ..."
"... His son was given immunity in exchange. Little Flynn was taking money in a similar pay to play that we saw with Clinton; most likely from Turkey. Michael is protecting his son. Whether there is more to the story, we will know in due time; I am betting that some interesting info will come out in the coming weeks. ..."
"... Mueller was a liar from the very beginning.Mueller lies to congress, commits perjury; Weapons of Mass Destruction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkF6WpWAxy8 ..."
"... I couldn't disagree more with the premise of this article. Flynn's son is caught in the crosshairs and he's trying to save him. And if you lie and they have you on record then of course you should admit it. ..."
"... This non-recording enables the FBI to entrap any witneses, relative, non-related person with false claims about what they said. Become their witness, or be prosecuted by what their agents say you said. ..."
Well, what if, instead of Flynn providing damning information against another member of Trump's inner circle, or against the president
himself, Mueller's prosecution of Flynn is an insurance policy protecting him and his team from being dismissed by Trump? To wit,
Bloomberg speculates that Flynn's guilty plea might just be the fodder the special counsel needed to protect his team from dismissal
by the president. Given that calls for Trump to fire the hopelessly compromised special prosecutor have persisted since last spring,
there's more than enough reason to believe that Flynn's prosecution is an end in itself.
By securing a guilty plea from Flynn, Mueller has effectively bought his team precious time to uncover the "smoking gun" that
has eluded them thus far. Mueller's prosecution of Flynn is insurance against a presidential firing. At this stage, firing Mueller
would lend credence to Democrats' accusations that the president obstructed justice when he asked former FBI Director James Comey
to go easy on Flynn. Of course, Trump didn't do himself any favors when he tweeted that Flynn was fired because he lied to Vice President
Mike Pence and the FBI (though Trump lawyer John Dowd later copped to writing the tweet, it certainly didn't help Trump's case for
firing Mueller).
Equally as important, Flynn's prosecution, following so soon after the charges against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, also suggests
that his investigation is making "progress" – though the logical end point of his crusade remains murky.
As Mueller's probe has gotten closer to Trump's inner orbit, speculation has risen over whether Trump might find a way to shut
it down. The Flynn deal may make that harder. For one thing, it shows that Mueller is making progress.
"Any rational prosecutor would realize that in this political environment, laying down a few markers would be a good way of fending
off criticism that the prosecutors are burning through money and not accomplishing anything," says Samuel Buell, a former federal
prosecutor now at Duke Law School.
The Flynn plea also makes it difficult for Trump to fire Mueller without inviting accusations of a cover-up and sparking a constitutional
crisis, says Michael Weinstein, a former Department of Justice prosecutor now at the law firm Cole Schotz. "There would be a groundswell,
it would look so objectionable, like the Saturday Night Massacre with Nixon," Weinstein says, referring to President Richard Nixon's
attempt to derail the Watergate investigation in 1973 by firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox.
Furthermore, as one legal expert told Bloomberg, it's difficult to see how Flynn's testimony will be enough to incriminate another
member of Trump's inner circle. While Flynn's many alleged misdeeds have been chronicled in the press (most notoriously his alleged
plan to kidnap Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen), given what's been reported so far, it's hard to see how Flynn's prosecution ties
in to some broader narrative.
Flynn's testimony might eventually help Mueller bring down Kushner or another top Trump aide, but it's hard to imagine how Flynn's
word would be enough at this point.
Flynn alone may not be enough to advance an obstruction or collusion case. Prosecutors would likely need evidence against other
high-ranking Trump associates, including perhaps Jared Kushner. "Unless you've got them on tape, you're going to need a lot better
witnesses than Flynn," says Raymond Banoun, a former federal prosecutor.
Some experts believe that Mueller's probe is now almost certain to reach a step beyond that. "Before this is wrapped up, Mueller's
going to request an interview with the president, and he may even request it under oath," says Amy Sabrin, a Washington lawyer who
worked for Bill Clinton on the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. "And then what is Trump going to do?"
Which leaves one option: Flynn's prosecution is simply an insurance policy. Flynn's guilty plea helped mollify angry Democrats
who are demanding Trump's head on a platter. At the same time, it will allow Mueller and his team of hopelessly compromised Hillary
Clinton supporters to fend off their critics, who've recently been emboldened by reports that
Peter Strzok , an FBI agent who played an important role in the early stages of what became the Mueller investigation - and who
also helped supervise the bureau's investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information – expressed anti-Trump
sentiments in a series of text messages to his colleague/mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
Ultimately, Mueller will be able to persevere – and the atmosphere of paranoia and mistrust he has helped foster in the West Wing
will continue to hobble the Trump administration.
Why are they looking for a fucking smoking gun, when there is no motive? What is the motive, illegal improved relations with
Russia? Isn't that a Presidents job to use his mandate to change course?
Gimme some public hangings, come on, everyone wants it.
Mueller is the running man in this little episode in history. He's the cowboy in the trail swishing the branches across the
tracks, and then stomping down false trails before cutting off sharply into the woods.
As old as he is, he only needs to keep running a few more years at most so that he can die free and not in prison.
I was going to say the same thing. I read the bloomberg article (linked on Drudge) like 20min ago...Tyler used the same pics
as well. Is this what "Journalism" has come to? C'mon Tyler! don't get sloppy here.
mueller, comey, holder, clinton crime syndicate is a round robin circle jerk that has been operating since Arkansas days.
Larry
Nichols was the architect who said the basis of the Clinton crime family's power model is to own the prosecution if not the entire
justice chain in the jurisdiction. Then it was Arkansas later DC.
This was an attempted coup d'état as the most ex excellent Matt Bracken points out. He rightly compares this to the plot to
kill hitler which failed. The plotters were sure they had succeeded until they were lined up against the wall and shot.
After the donors (corporate kelptocrats) get their tax "reform", the mainstream Republicans will jump on the Mueller band wagon
and join the Democrats in dumping Trump. National politicians are all crooks, and they are scared shitless to have an unpredictable
loose cannon in the Oval Office, willing to call them out at anytime.
What they don't understand is that Trump may become even more dangerous to them if he is no longer in office. A Trump-Bannon
media machine could do a lot of damage with nothing to restrain it. Look for Muller to tie Bannon into all of this, because Bannon
now has a national platform and is too dangerous left on his own to say and do whatever he wants.
Apparently Mueller and the douche bag who wrote this article are the only people in the world who still believe this is a viable
investigation. Mueller has zero chance of convicting anyone after what has been revealed about his investigators as well as his
personal involvement in Uranium One. Not to mention, btw, that he is required by law to recuse himself because of his close relationship
to one of the key witnesses/actors in this investigation, Comey. It's not even up for debate, it's mandatory and with that being
written quite clearly, Mueller still didn't do it. Now it is revealed that Mueller sat with Trump in a job interview for acting
head of the FBI while knowing he could very possibly (and was) be selected as a special prosecutor for an investigation into Trump/Russia
collusion and he never told Trump. Apparently this is also an act requiring recusal.
Mueller will be lucky to not be sitting in jail after this fiasco. He's crooked as hell and his cover has been blown. Just
a matter of time at this point as we are witnessing almost daily revelations of misconduct by his investigators as well as other
high level FBI/DOJ officials.
This guy Bruce Ohr was recently demoted from Deputy Director of DOJ, and is suspected of having contacts early in the year
with Fusion GPS and personally with Chris Steele, author of the DNC disinformation golden shower dossier. If government officials
were involved in manufacturing that, then we really do have an anti-Trump deep state conspiracy.
Yeah. It is hard to know if Mueller has any good cards or not. I don't think a guilty plea over lying to FBI makes for a good
witness in court, so I say you got nothing Mueller, time to call.
I think at best he is going to pull a stunt by making his investigation public to smear Trump with rumor and innuendo , but
a cold hard analysis of fact will show that it is a case no prosecutor would ever take to court.
That's the exact thing the puzzles me. Watching details unfold. They screwed him. Set him up on this specific one. Why plead
guilty? Flynn doesn't strike me as someone who doesn't know what he's doing.
His son was given immunity in exchange. Little Flynn was taking money in a similar pay to play that we saw with Clinton; most
likely from Turkey. Michael is protecting his son. Whether there is more to the story, we will know in due time; I am betting
that some interesting info will come out in the coming weeks.
Flynn's only criminal act was a misstatement. That is what they would have called it if Hillary had been caught up in the sting.
This is the best they have been able to produce after this tedious attempt to construct a criminal plot that would take down Trump.
What they have managed to do is focus a national spot light onto their own misdeeds. The middle management of the FBI better start
looking after their own interest. The Agency has a litany of misdeeds in its dossier. If it plans on surviving the ongoing fire
storm, those infected members within the Agency must be triaged.
Maybe Mueller will not survive, if compromising leaks start leaking. One email or conversation between Strzok, Comey and Hillary/Lynch
how to exonerate Hillary and to eavesdrop Trump and bring down Trump or people around him and Mueller is finished.
I couldn't disagree more with the premise of this article. Flynn's son is caught in the crosshairs and he's trying to save
him. And if you lie and they have you on record then of course you should admit it.
Oh wait, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin lied
but they didn't admit it. I wonder if that's because the person that interviewed them was a biased Hillary supporter????
Trump as Chief Executive needs require the FBI to record all interviews with witnesses and suspects.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-reverses-longstanding-interview... This non-recording enables the FBI to entrap any
witneses, relative, non-related person with false claims about what they said. Become their witness, or be prosecuted by what
their agents say you said.
"... "Israel Colluded with Incoming Trump Team to Subvert U.S. Foreign Policy," ..."
"... "FBI Entraps National Security Adviser." ..."
"... The first phone call to Kislyak, on December 22 nd , was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd . ..."
"... And just to demonstrate exactly how the story is shaped to protect Israel, here is a piece from the generally reliable The Hill written by Morgan Chalfant on 5 take-aways from Flynn's guilty plea . Israel is not even identified and, if one reads the two mentions of the U.N. vote connected to the first call, it appears to be deliberately omitted. The first citation reads "He also lied when he said he did not ask Kislyak to delay or defeat a vote on a pending U.N. Security Council resolution " and the second is "Prosecutors also say that a senior member of the transition team on Dec. 22 directed Flynn to contact officials from Russia and other governments about their stance on the U.N. resolution 'and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.'" Does omitting Israel and emphasizing the Russian aspect of the story throughout the rest of the piece change what it says and how it is perceived? You betcha. ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, is a former CIA Operations officer who is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax exempt educational foundation that seeks a more interests based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address us P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville, VA 20132, and email address is [email protected] . ..."
"... The real issue is not Zionist influence in America but globalist influence in America. Is Trump pursuing a globalist agenda that will destroy America as a coherent nation state, or does he reject the Obama/Clinton project for the submergence of the American nation by a flood of settlers with a contempt for Americans, especially white, Chrisitan Americans. ..."
Reading the mainstream media headlines relating to the flipping of former National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn to provide evidence relating to the allegations about Russian
interference in America's last presidential election requires the suspension of one's cognitive
processes. Ignoring completely what had actually occurred, the "Russian story" with its subset
of "getting Trump" was on display all through the weekend, both in the print and on the live
media.
Flynn's guilty plea is laconic, merely admitting that he had lied to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) about what was said during two telephone conversations with then Russian
Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak, but there is considerable back story that
emerged after the plea became public.
The two phone calls in question include absolutely nothing about possible collusion with
Russia to change the outcome of the U.S. election, which allegedly was the raison d'etre behind
the creation of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel office in the first place. Both took place
more than a month after the election and both were initiated by the Americans involved. I am
increasingly convinced that Mueller ain't got nuthin' but this process will grind out
interminably and the press will be hot on the trail until there is nowhere else to go.
Based on the information revealed regarding the two conversations, and, unlike the highly
nuance-sensitive editors working for the mainstream media, this is the headline that I would
have written for a featured article based on what I consider to be important: "Israel
Colluded with Incoming Trump Team to Subvert U.S. Foreign Policy," with a possible
subheading "FBI Entraps National Security Adviser."
The first phone call to Kislyak, on December 22 nd , was made by Flynn at the
direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United
Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in
years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner,
acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the
Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call
to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution
2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd .
The second phone call, made by Flynn on December 29 th from a beach in the
Dominican Republic, where he was on vacation, may have been ordered by Trump himself. It was a
response to an Obama move to expel Russian diplomats and close two Embassy buildings over
allegations of Moscow's interfering in the 2016 election. Flynn asked the Russians not to
reciprocate, making the point that there would be a new administration in place in three weeks
and the relationship between the two countries might change for the better. Kislyak apparently
convinced Russian President Vladimir Putin not to go tit-for-tat.
In taking the phone calls from a soon-to-be senior American official who would within weeks
be part of a new administration in Washington, the Russians did nothing wrong. It would not be
inappropriate to have some conversations with an incoming government team. Apart from holding
off on retaliatory sanctions, Kislyak also did nothing that might be regarded as particularly
responsive to Team Trump overtures. If it was an attempt to interfere in American politics, it
certainly was low-keyed, and one might well describe it positively as a willingness to give the
new Trump Administration a chance to improve relations.
The first phone call about Israel was not as benign as the second one about sanctions.
Son-in-law Jared Kushner is Trump's point man on the Middle East. He and his family have
extensive
ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu's staying at the
Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's
illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared
has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the
relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance.
All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with
the incoming Trumpsters, look no further.
And it should be observed that the Israelis
were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express
their views to the incoming Trump. Netanyahu said that he would do so and Trump even responded
with a tweet of his own expressing disagreement with the Obama decision to abstain on the vote,
but the White House knew that the comment would be coming and there was no indication from the
president-elect that he was actively trying to derail or undo it.
Kushner, however, goes far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of foreign policy as he
was trying to clandestinely reverse a decision made by his own legally constituted government.
His closeness to Netanyahu makes him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli government
agent of influence, even if he doesn't quite see himself that way. He is currently working on a
new peace plan for the Middle East which starts out with permanently demilitarizing the
Palestinians. It will no doubt continue in the tradition of former plans which aggrandized
Jewish power while stiffing the Arabs. And not to worry about the team that will be allegedly
representing American interests. It is already being reported that
they consist of "good, observant Jews" and will not be a problem, even though Israeli-American
mega-fundraiser Haim Saban apparently described
them on Sunday as "With all due respect, it's a bunch of Orthodox Jews who have no idea
about anything."
What exactly did Kushner seek from Flynn? He asked the soon-to-be National Security Adviser
to get the Russians to undermine and subvert what was being done by the still-in-power American
government in Washington headed by President Barack Obama. In legal terms this does not quite
equate to the Constitution's definition of treason since Israel is not technically an enemy,
but it most certainly would be covered by the Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens
from negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the United States and also could be
construed as a "conspiracy against the United States" that the Mueller investigation has
exploited against former Trump associate Paul Manafort. As Kushner is Jewish and certainly
could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis , this part of the story obviously makes
many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it is being ignored and expunged
from the record as quickly as possible. And don't expect Special Counsel Mueller to do anything
about the Israel connection. As an experienced operator in the Washington swamp he knows full
well that the Congressmen currently calling for blood in an investigation involving Russia will
turn 180 degrees against him if he tries to go after Netanyahu.
And just to demonstrate exactly how the story is shaped to protect Israel,
here is a piece from the generally reliable The Hill written by Morgan Chalfant on 5 take-aways from Flynn's guilty plea . Israel is not even identified and, if one
reads the two mentions of the U.N. vote connected to the first call, it appears to be
deliberately omitted. The first citation reads "He also lied when he said he did not ask
Kislyak to delay or defeat a vote on a pending U.N. Security Council resolution " and the
second is "Prosecutors also say that a senior member of the transition team on Dec. 22 directed
Flynn to contact officials from Russia and other governments about their stance on the U.N.
resolution 'and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.'"
Does omitting Israel and emphasizing the Russian aspect of the story throughout the rest of the
piece change what it says and how it is perceived? You betcha.
For me, there was also a second take-away from the Flynn story apart from the collusion with
Israel. It involves the use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to set-up Flynn shortly
after he had been installed as National Security Adviser. Insofar as I can determine, the FBI
entrapment of Flynn has only been
examined in a serious way in the media by Robert Parry at Consortium News.
Michael Flynn was actually interviewed by the FBI regarding his two phone conversations on
January 24 th shortly after assumed office as National Security Adviser. During his
interview, he was not made aware that the Bureau already had recordings and transcripts of his
phone conversations, so, in a manner of speaking, he was being set-up to fail. Mis-remembering,
forgetting or attempting to avoid implication of others in the administration would inevitably
all be plausibly construed as lying since the FBI knew exactly what was said.
To be sure, many would agree that the sleazy Flynn deserves everything he gets, but the
logic used to set-up the possible Flynn entrapment by the FBI, i.e. that there was unauthorized
contact with a foreign official, is in itself curious as Flynn was a private citizen at the
time and such contact is not in itself illegal. And it also opens the door to the Bureau's
investigating other individuals who have committed no crime but who find that they cannot
recall details of phone calls they were parties to that were being recorded by the government
six months or a year before. That can easily be construed as "lying" or "perjury" with
consequences that include possible prison time.
So there are two observations one might make about the Flynn saga as it currently stands.
First, Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to inauguration
day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal, which should surprise no one.
And second, record all your phone conversations with foreign government officials. The NSA and
FBI will have a copy in any event, but you might want to retain your own records to make sure
their transcript is accurate.
Philip M. Giraldi, is a former CIA Operations officer who is Executive Director of the
Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax exempt educational foundation that seeks a
more interests based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address us P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville, VA 20132, and
email address is [email protected] .
How is it that the FBI interrogates an agent of the President Elect on secret negotiations
conducted on behalf of the President Elect?
And isn't that agent of the President Elect obliged, as a matter of national security, to
conceal the details of those secret negotiations from anyone who attempts to extract them
from him, lying as necessary to do so?
And anyhow, what was the point? Why the interrogation? The negotiations were made over the
telephone, so the US Government, and presumably, therefore, the FBI, could obtain a
transcript if they needed to know what was said.
The whole story seems nonsensical. But if anyone comes out of this looking good, maybe it
will be Flynn. while it is the FBI and Robert Mueller who get their come uppance.
Nothing new, but a very clear summary of the situation, as one would expect from Mr Giraldi
– including the customary warping of reality by the TPTB (substitution of "Israel" with
"Russia").
Perhaps, the article is too tepid only on the legal entrapment combined with NSA recording
of communications. Who says that this will be applied only to conversations with foreign
nationals? I am sure that other statutes exist or will be quickly created to entrap anyone
who does not remember word-for-word what was said in his communications with anyone else:
thus lying to the Police etc. This is a magnificent self-awarded gift to the US regime which
will only keep giving. I am waiting for the vassals to follow closely behind – the
five-eyes and EU countries to develop similar entrapment resources.
What is the point of recording someone's communications if you cannot also put him in
jail at will?
I expect the Jewish media will get orders from Israel to back off if they try to target
Kushner. He's a useful, pro-Israel link to Trump for Netanyahu, and too valuable to get rid
of just because left-wing media Jews want to take down Trump. Trump is a lot more pro-Israel
than the leftists, and Netanyahu knows it.
Over the years, Israel has paid Jewish-American reporters for writing pro-Israel puff
pieces in US news, and Netanyahu could just threaten to cut off the lucre to bring them in
line. Or, if he is really angry, he could send a few Mossad agents to have a talk with the
Jewish reporters about how they're hurting Israel, and if that happens, then too bad because
the Mossad will have to do something about them.
Anyway, it looks like Mueller's investigation will halt at Flynn. If Mueller tries to go
farther, something 'interesting' may happen to him. If he does, I expect to see a full
smackdown of his investigation from every direction with accusations against his honesty and
probity, followed by his firing once enough public rage has been ginned up against him so
that all liberal protests in his favor are drowned out by the fury of the lynch mob.
Phil, this makes me feel even worse than I did before. I knew that RussiaGate was nonsense
from the Hillary camp, however, the fact that Trump would bring his son-in-law into the WH
and allow him to collude with Israel against the national interests of this country, fills me
with dismay.
While I supported Trump mostly as an anti-Hillary stance and not because I saw him as
someone who would bring about great positive change to our country (e.g. draining the swamp),
I had hoped that his pandering to Israel during the election campaign was mostly political
SOP. Since last November, however, he has gradually lost me. I am happy that he has not
started new wars, but with the accelerated donkey-felating of Israel, I am not confident that
we won't soon embark on more wars for Israel and more funds to that shitty country from our
taxes.
Michael Flynn was actually interviewed because he was stupid enough to talk to
the police. Never talk to the police. Don't believe me, this is a detective who says
don't talk to the police:
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2
An experienced police officer tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed
by the police. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
Of course, nowadays if you assert your 5th Amendment right to not talk, street cops will
construe that as mental illness, so it's acceptable to do as Kenny Suitter does. Remind them
verbally that you're not talking to them by saying: "I don't answer questions."
Or better yet, shut your cakehole and hold a sign that says "I remain silent. No searches.
I want my lawyer." Even works at Soviet no suspicion checkpoints in the USSA. Mostly.
Checkpoint: I REMAIN SILENT-NO SEARCHES-I WANT MY LAWYER
Bravo to Phil Giraldi for calling out and writing about these treasonous bastards. Thanks to
Unz for giving him the platform. Keep reporting and hopefully there will be enough people
that will stand up and prevent this tyranny from developing further.
The Russian collusion story will flower eventually. I feel certain of that. But really, who
among us did not feel that Kushner would be doing Israel's bidding, from back as far as the
spring of 2016? Who thought that 'One President at a time' would apply to Jarad and the
administration elect?
It has never been made clear why Flynn was the man as far as Jarad and Ivanka were
concerned? Was it merely because they viewed him as a dupe for their plans?
Was Obama setting up the new administration with someone he knew was already criminally
exposed–Flynn–and was the almost certain hire –because of Kushner– as
well as because of the current president's strong objections?
Yes it seems like the term "duel loyalty" was almost made for Kushner. With Jarad's title
of Ambassador without portfolio Israel didn't even have to effort a move of the US embassy to
Jerusalem –it was a given– and as far as permission to attack Iran? I'm afraid
that seems in the cards as well.
If Israel isn't mentioned–by US Media– it should be. While all calls are not
recorded by NSA it is likely that those countries with the greatest presence in spy assets
within the US (Rus/Isl) undoubtedly are. Yes Flynn lied to the FBI. I don't think there's
much question Kushner will too.
I suppose here we have an important cause of Russiagate, Israel sees that Syria is not
destabilised, just physically destroyed, thanks to Russian interference.
USA support is the only reason Israel still exists, good relations between USA and Russia may
mean the end of Israel, in any case the end of Israeli power in the ME.
And if USA support ends, what about German support ?
Will Israel get another two billion submarine, for which the German taxpayer pays some 400
million ?
At the same time, I fear we see that no anti missile system is capable of destroying many
missiles if they come at the same time.
When, I hope never, Russia fires most of its 1600 old fashioned ballistic missiles at the
USA, some will het through, I suppose.
Well I said if Mueller wants to make himself useful he could take down Kushner. Be
interesting to see if we get any follow up on him, or if it quietly dies in the dark as you
surmise, these things always seem to once they have the potential to impact negatively on
Zionist interests. Will that kill the whole investigation, it certainly seems to be coming to
a dead end anyway?
First, Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to
inauguration day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal, which should
surprise no one.
Well, it certainly doesn't surprise me and I'm (happily) a nobody. Anyway, at least the
Ziocreeps are consistent.
Looks like Oncle Joey was right again.
"Blame others for your own sins."
J. V. Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism ? December, 1906 -- January, 1907
Why does "Israel" seem to be at, or very near, the center of most major issues of the day
once the curtain is lifted a bit, and why are they nearly always suspected of doing something
unjust and shady if not downright criminal?
And what about the eternal victim image we dumb goyim are supposed to imbibe with our
mammy's milk?
While I agree with Giraldi on Israel's outrageous influence on U.S. politics, I am much more
concerned by how the FBI has become a thoroughly corrupt secret police for the Establishment
and Deep State. And the Department of Just-Us is all part of it. It's so fucking Orwellian.
The FBI went into that interview with the plan to get Flynn. He never had a chance. Even
if he had a transcript of his phone conversations, and provided answers from that, they
would've manipulated him into a BS process crime.
I'm a former investigator and worked with a former S/A (not FBI) who told me about when he
worked cases with the FBI. They will lie and fabricate stuff in order to set people up and
then make threats on what people didn't say. If you're a target of the FBI it makes no
difference how honest you are and how precise and accurate your answers are to their
questions.
Apart from all that, I trust people with last name Kushner over people with the last name
of Mueller or Strzok
Smoke screen! The spooks are more spooked than ever! What exactly did the US intelligence
services get up to that they're now so scared of Russiagate? Mr Giraldi is in such a panic
that he totally fails to make the point in the title. He essentially admits Russian
interference but does not establish, nor even, in fact, claim, that there is any connection
between Israel and Russian interference. Israel has no need to engage in undercover
interference to influence US politics. It does so quite openly and has the Israel Lobby to
support it. It certainly has no need of Russian help! One might also ask what disadvantage
there would have been for Israel if Hillary was elected. Why would they feel the need to
manipulate the election in Trump's favour? Thus, it's not an "either or" situation, as Mr
Giraldi tries to present it. Regardless of whether or not there was also Israeli
interference, Russian interference, with the help of American "associates", is well
established and confirmed by an almost identical pattern of interference in the French
presidential election. More interestingly, though, what has emerged from Flynn's testimony so
far is that the initiative came from the Trump campaign, not the Russians. The evidence
available up to that point suggested that the Russians had taken the initiative and more or
less set up the naïve "bunch of Orthodox Jews". It's little wonder therefore that both
Putin's American supporters and Trump's personal lawyer are running around in panic!
Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to inauguration
day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal,
And don't expect Special Counsel Mueller to do anything about the Israel connection. As
an experienced operator in the Washington swamp he knows full well that the Congressmen
currently calling for blood in an investigation involving Russia will turn 180 degrees
against him if he tries to go after Netanyahu.
Mueller was head of the FBI during the 9/11 "investigation"
you don't get anymore 'swamp creature' than that
more here:
Trump succeeded in convincing Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to order his UN
delegation to delay the vote. Egypt then withdrew its sponsorship of 2334. However, four
members of the Security Council -- Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela –
counteracted Sisi's abandonment and brought the resolution to a Council vote. It passed and
was enacted due to the American abstention. It is quite certain that the Obama
administration sought the assistance of its intelligence and military ally, New Zealand, in
bolstering Malaysia, Senegal, and Venezuela against furious backroom opposition from Israel
and the Trump transition team. Trump and Kushner decided that just prior to Flynn's
indictment, they would demonstrate their fealty to Israel by announcing that the United
States was going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy
from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Such actions, far from showing "collusion" with a foreign
power, point to conflicted loyalty, at the very least.
Netanyahu told New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully that New Zealand's support
for the resolution would be tantamount to a declaration of war against Israel,
when I read the above quote, it seemed too explosive not to have a link, so I 'Binged'
it
Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told New Zealand's foreign minister that support for a UN
resolution condemning Israeli settlement-building in the occupied territories would be
viewed as a "declaration of war".
There has never been a successful prosecution under the Logan Act and likely there will
never be one. However, those who possessed access to classified information – Trump,
Kushner, Flynn, Haley, and others – who were simultaneously taking orders from
Israel on matters of US national security, could be found guilty of violating the US
Espionage Act .
To be sure, many would agree that the sleazy Flynn deserves everything he gets,
if he was talking money from Turkey, to represent their interests- while masquerading as
our National Security Advisor, then I wouldn't mind seeing him hanged by the neck until it
snapped or until he stopped dancing.
but then that's how I feel about all acts of treason against my nation, and the
scum who serve the interests of our deadliest enemy at the direct expense of this nation they
swore a sacred oath to.
I wonder how clean the Democrats' hands are, vis-a-vis the Logan Act? Has every incoming
Democrat administration really been so squeaky clean in its dealings with foreign
agents?
The two phone calls in question include absolutely nothing about possible collusion with
Russia to change the outcome of the U.S. election, which allegedly was the raison d'etre
behind the creation of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel office in the first place. Both
took place more than a month after the election and both were initiated by the Americans
involved. I am increasingly convinced that Mueller ain't got nuthin' but this process will
grind out interminably and the press will be hot on the trail until there is nowhere else
to go.
IANAL; does the old "fruit of the poison tree" apply to investigations/prosecutions as a
whole, or just to evidence found/used therein? Because the fact that one of the interviewers,
(((Strzok))) (caveat: (((echoes))) based on personal Jewdar only (facial phrenology, name,
occupation, politics, corruption); was unable to confirm via Gewgle) has been ejected from
Mueller's team seems germane. Maybe he'll only impact the trial, the way Fuhrman impacted
OJ's trial?
It's interesting how central the Logan Act has been in all this, considering how it's
never been used to prosecute anyone in its over 217 years of existence. The Jews and their
lackeys are now reduced to using blue Laws; to return to the "mobs Jews stirred up that
turned on them" motif, what if we started prosecuting Jews with blue laws against, say,
sodomy?
The NYT has a new piece up, titled "Why the Trump Team should fear the Logan Act."
Why the Trump team should fear the Swamp's use of blue laws? Because the Swamp is totally
corrupt and they hate Trump, that's why.
The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's illegal settlements and also a
number of conservative political groups in that country.
It would be interesting to know more about that; how much more worthy do the Kushners
regard Israel as being of Conservative advocacy, compared to their ostensible homeland, the
United States? Because they seem to be fairly leftist in their desires for the latter.
His closeness to Netanyahu makes him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli
government agent of influence, even if he doesn't quite see himself that way.
How Jews see themselves is very often a study in rationalization and self-deception;
eminently worthy of study, but never to be taken at face value.
I expect the Jewish media will get orders from Israel to back off if they try to target
Kushner. He's a useful, pro-Israel link to Trump for Netanyahu, and too valuable to get rid
of just because left-wing media Jews want to take down Trump. Trump is a lot more
pro-Israel than the leftists, and Netanyahu knows it.
Trump may be marginally more pro-Zionist than the communist (AKA leftist) establishment,
but it's not really possible for Trump to be "a lot more pro-Israel"; there isn't enough
daylight available – the communists are too pro-Zionist for that.
And I doubt that margin is really worth the trouble; the Diaspora Wing of the Tribe hates
Hates HATES Trump and wants him gone Gone GONE. It's harder to do business with the Swamp
when it's mobilized to destroy the current administration; being seen as too cozy with the
object of their hatred is counter-productive.
Over the years, Israel has paid Jewish-American reporters for writing pro-Israel puff
pieces in US news, and Netanyahu could just threaten to cut off the lucre to bring them in
line.
The money flow is very much in the opposite direction; from the Jewish diaspora to Israel,
not the other way around.
Or better yet, shut your cakehole and hold a sign that says "I remain silent. No
searches. I want my lawyer." Even works at Soviet no suspicion checkpoints in the USSA.
Mostly.
It's also a good idea to keep asking cops if you can leave. They often have to wait on K-9
units, for which demand outstrips supply. And they have regulations as to how long they're
allowed to keep you waiting before they conduct their search, and crucially don't have to
volunteer the fact that they have limits on how long they're allowed to make you wait .
But they do have to tell you if you're free to leave, if you're free to leave. So ask them
every 5 minutes or so, "may I leave now?"
While I agree with Giraldi on Israel's outrageous influence on U.S. politics, I am much
more concerned by how the FBI has become a thoroughly corrupt secret police for the
Establishment and Deep State. And the Department of Just-Us is all part of it. It's so
fucking Orwellian.
The upper ranks seem to be thick with Jews, too. Which should surprise no one who knows
even a bit about Soviet history.
"I'm a former investigator and worked with a former S/A (not FBI) who told me about when
he worked cases with the FBI. They will lie and fabricate stuff in order to set people up and
then make threats on what people didn't say."
Double Fake News Story.
You, as well as Girabaldi, really need to become educated as far as the Mueller
investigation is concerned.
Who within the Administration allowed Flynn to be interviewed by the FBI on January 24,
2017?
It seems Flynn was intentionally set up by disloyal legal and other advisers on
Trump's team, obviously to drive a wedge into the incoming administration.
No lawyer worth his salt would allow such an interview to proceed without serious
preparation and safeguards. Having just assumed office, the White House had legitimate
reasons to slow-walk any FBI requests. In particular, Team Trump should and could have waited
until the FBI was cleansed of the worst hold-overs and swamp creatures (such as Deputy AG
Rosenstein who later appointed Mueller).
Flynn was NOT obligated to allow an FBI interview at all, and could legitimately have
argued that he was entitled to executive privilege. Of course, the MSM were out to get Trump
from the outset, and no doubt coordinated their story with Comey and Mueller.
Buchanan's latest article, Is Flynn's Defection a Death Blow? , asks Why Why Why
did Flynn lie to the FBI.
He committed the Martha Stewart offense. An ankle monitor is not that big a deal; Martha's
still baking cupcakes in recycled soda cans and selling overpriced stuff.
So maybe Flynn is actually a patriot, and fell on a rubber sword on purpose, in order to
expose the Israel connection that he perceived as getting out of hand??
Nothing new. Israel was meddling in the US political system even before it was created. But
the deep state will summarily reject the truth and keep pushing its fairy tale about "evil
Russia": after all, Israel is not a suitable bogeyman to justify totally insane "defense"
budget, which now exceeds the sum total of defense budgets of the rest of the world. Russia,
like the USSR before it, is used to justify shameless feeding frenzy of Pentagon contractors.
They are destroying the US more effectively than any enemy could, but their greed blinds them
to the fact.
Flynn was NOT obligated to allow an FBI interview at all, and could legitimately have
argued that he was entitled to executive privilege.
So by agreeing to an FBI interview, was Flynn setting up the swamp dwellers? For example,
to demonstrate, in due course, that he was compelled to lie to protect national security from
a lawless and out of control FBI.
The former US Secretary of Defense William J. Perry:
"When the Cold War ended, I believed that we no longer had to take that risk [nuclear
annihilation] During my period as the Secretary of Defense in the 90s, I oversaw the
dismantlement of 8,000 nuclear weapons evenly divided between the United States and the
former Soviet Union. And I thought then that we were well on our way to putting behind us
this deadly existential threat, But that was not to be. Today, inexplicably to me, we're
recreating the geopolitical hostility of the Cold War, and we're rebuilding the nuclear
dangers. We are doing this without any serious public discussion or any real understanding of
the consequences of these actions. We are sleepwalking into a new Cold War, and there's very
real danger that we will blunder into a nuclear war."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-03/former-us-defense-secretary-explains-why-nuclear-holocaust-now-likely
Paul Craig Roberts (the former US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic
Policy): https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/12/05/walking-into-armageddon/
"The power of the military/security complex and the Israel Lobby, the two prime war-mongers
of the 21st century, have immobilized the President of the United States. The real reason
that the military/security complex is after Gen. Flynn is that he is the former director of
the Defense Intelligence Agency and he said on a TV news show that the decision by the
Obama regime to send ISIS to overthrow Syria was a "willful decision" that went against his
recommendation . In other words, Flynn let the cat out of the bag that ISIS was not an
independently formed organization but a tool of US policy. Private interests and agendas have
control over the US government. Washington works by selling legislation to the interest
groups in exchange for campaign contributions. The private interests that provide the money
that elects politiicans get the laws that they want."
"Panic." Yes – the panic is palpable in the Israelis'/Lobby' words and deeds in
relation to Syria's sovereignty. The ziocon's mad irritation with the end of slaughter in
Syria deprives them of reason. Thence the visceral, irrational, overwhelming hatred of
Russians by the moral midgets that profess "Israel first." The supremacist fools would
initiate a nuclear conflict to prevail in a fight with their Arab cousins. Could not you just
leave the western civilization alone?
"The power of the military/security complex and the Israel Lobby, the two prime
war-mongers of the 21st century" – so true! We are witnessing the end of your
profitable "eternal victimhood."
And look where Kushner's "competence" has taken the investigation into Russiagate .
Amazing, indeed.
Also, what could be more valuable for Israel (the only theocratic apartheid "democracy" in
the Middle East) than the sweet and devoted friendship with the so upright and moral Saudis!
And none other than the aspiring Jared has procured this special friendship. Jared is really
good at clearing the fog of Israeli "democratic" morals.
So by agreeing to an FBI interview, was Flynn setting up the swamp dwellers?
Not impossible but this sounds like too much 4D chess. Also, the public exposure of Flynn
is immediate and harmful, whereas any gain against the Deep State is deferred and
speculative.
Let's imagine this story if it happened in a different country:
An opposition leader wins a close election after a government uses all its power and media
control to elect a selected successor. During the transition, the state police investigates
the members of the incoming administration and puts them under surveillance. Street mobs that
support the previous government are unleashed on the streets to intimidate the elected
president and his supporters. After the opposition is sworn in, the old-regime loyalists
immediately start investigating them and threaten them with removal from office.
Media who supported the previous administration goes on a hysterical witch-hunt. A special
committee is formed to investigate the incoming president and any people connected to him.
Eventually people are charged with talking to ' foreigners ' and ' lying '
about it when interrogated by the state police. The losing candidate openly disparages the
legitimacy of the elected president. Media cheers it on and constantly predicts how very soon
the interloper who somehow managed to win the elections will be removed.
If this happened in a different country, Washington would now be talking sanctions or
worse.
Kennedy was the only president to go after Israel and the Jews US Fifth Column.
In addition to demanding Israel open their nuke facilities for inspection his adm and AG
supported the 1963 Fulbright Senate hearings on the ZOA and its Jews in the US. The ZOA then
became AIPAC under Johnson.
That's why they killed him.
DOJ orders the AZC to Register as a Foreign Agent
"Attached hereto is the entire file relating to the American Zionist Council and our
efforts to obtain its registration under the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act
"
Documents
In the early 1960′s Israel funneled $5 million (more than $35 million in today's
dollars) into US propaganda and lobbying operations. The funds were channeled via the quasi
governmental Jewish Agency's New York office into an Israel lobby umbrella group, the
American Zionist Council. Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigations and hearings
documented funding flows, propaganda, and public relations efforts and put them into the
record. But the true fate of the American Zionist Council was never known, except that its
major functions were visibly shut down and shifted over to a former AZC unit known as the
"Kenen Committee," called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC) in the late
1960′s. The following chronology provides links to images of original Department of
Justice case files released on June 10, 2008 under a Freedom of Information Act filing.
John F. Kennedy President, Robert F. Kennedy Attorney General
Document/File Date Contents
08/27/1962 AZC internal memo – Lenore Karp to Rabbi Jerome Unger about AZC Department
of Public Information literature distribution.
Undated 1962-1963 AZC Public Relations Plan summary
10/31/1962 Assistant Attorney General and Director of the Internal Security Division J.
Walter Yeagley notifies Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy " we are soliciting next week the
registration of the American Zionist Council under the Foreign Agents Registration Act You
may be aware that the American Zionist Council is composed of representatives of the various
Zionist organizations in the United States including the Zionist Organization of
America."
11/06/1962 Nathan B. Lenvin, head of the FARA section, memo to central files, about a meeting
with Jewish Agency representative Maurice M. Boukstein who asks about FARA applicability to
AZC. " in his view it was doubtful that any great protest would be made since in the
discussions he has had with various officials connected both with the Zionist Council and the
Jewish Agency he had made it clear in his view an agency relationship would result which may
require registration.'"
11/14/1962 Edwin Guthman letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and Deputy Attorney
General Nicholas Katzenbach about future AZC FARA registration order. "I doubt very much
there will be any fuss. I don't think the American Zionist Council is in any position to do
so the Council has compromised its position." OK'd by Robert F. Kennedy.
11/21/1962 DOJ orders AZC to register under FARA " receipt of such funds from the American
Section of the Jewish Agency for Israel constitutes the Council an agent of a foreign
principal the Council's registration is requested."
12/06/1962 AZC President Rabbi Irving Miller response to DOJ "The request for registration
contained in your letter raises many questions of fact and of relationships which first must
be resolved by us before compliance can be made. Therefore, it is requested that you be good
enough to grant us a delay of 120 days "
01/02/1963
Archive Isaiah L. Kenen incorporates the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in
Washington, DC
01/24/1963
DOJ draft file memo about 01/23/1963 DOJ meeting with AZC head legal counsel Simon H. Rifkind
" he had advised his client to discontinue completely the agency relationship and cut off the
receipt of any additional funds Mr. Lenvin pointed out specifically that the termination of
the 'activities' on the part of AZC did not absolve it of its obligation to register "
01/25/1963 Article in the National Jewish Post, filed in FARA Section – "AZC Gives
Up $ to Avoid Foreign Agent Registration"
02/01/1963 DOJ Executive Assistant Thomas Hall memo to Nathan Lenvin updating meeting notes
"Mr. Hall emphasized that a contrary conclusion would not of course be reached during the
course of this meeting and suggested that the subject submit a detailed argument as to why it
was of the opinion it should not be required to register ."
02/08/1963 DOJ AZC January 23, 1963 meeting notes by Nathan Lenvin filed "discontinuance of
receipt of such funds thus terminating the agency relationship did not absolve the Council of
its obligation to register."
02/19/1963 American Council for Judaism (AJC) newsletter. "The American Zionist Council
(coordinating political action arm of all U.S. Zionist organizations) was asked last month by
the Justice Department to register as a 'foreign agent' of the State of Israel."
03/07/1963 New York Times reporter Tony Lewis calls FARA section to verify AZC foreign agent
order state AJC press release.
3/23/1963 AZC Counsel "Memorandum of Law in support of our position that the American Zionist
Council is not required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938."
04/01/1963 Nathan Lenvin file memo of DOJ AZC meeting on April 1, 1963- AZC Memorandum of Law
rejected. " if necessary I would be willing to recommend, if the representatives of the
Council insisted upon these points, that the matter be litigated."
As far as tech goes Google (Brin at least) and Facebook were significantly Jewish at
starting; Amazon is heavily reliant on investment capital and probably a significant portion
of the early developers were Jewish; they were well represented in the 90s tech scene. Also
the relationship between computing and finance, plus the emigration of Soviet Jews, was
probably a factor.
Honestly, impeachment would be a good thing, because it would throw the US into such chaos
that it might be less able to wreak death and destruction around the world.
It also would finally lift the scales off the Trumpees eyes and make it clear that the whole
thing is rotten to the core.
This site is full of Jewish conspiracy theorists. I am not one of them. The only Jewish
"conspiracy" that I have ever been able to detect is that they "conspire" to be successful.
As opposed to the rest of us, I guess – who conspire to be failures in life. Jews are
opportunists, they take advantage of the rules that the stupid gentiles make. And good on
them, they have shown remarkable skills doing that.
In the middle ages when the only way to be rich was to own a land, European countries
forbade the Jews from owning land. Then when the center of economic activity switched to the
cities – guess who was the best positioned to take full advantage of the situation
– the Jews. They became merchants, lawyers, bankers and so on.
I guess the stupid Europeans should have foreseen this development and as soon as the
cities became centers of wealth and economic activity – they should have gone Pol Pot
on the Jews – banish them to the countryside to do some farming there. So stop bitching
about the current situation in the US, it's not fault of the Jews, they are just taking
advantage of the stupidity of the US gentile elites.
Too many commenters cloud the issue by equating every Jew with a Zionist. This is just as
wrong as counting every German as a Nazi. Many Jews are appalled by the aggressiveness of
Israel and apartheid it practices.
Agreed. The Lib-Dems and their corpo/media/Follywood allies are attempting to destroy the
legitimacy of an elected president by means of fake news, fake indignation and fake charges
of treason.
But Trump surely has deep state allies as well as opponents, and thus will have been aware
before the inauguration of what he could expect, and would therefore likely have set traps
for the opposition.
The fact that the Mueller probe is losing all credibility suggests that the opposition may
yet come off worse than the President.
I suggest everyone who is fed up with Trump's Israel First betrayal of the US let him
know .
Is Trump an Israel Firster, or simply a friend of Israel. Trump ran a nationalistic
election campaign and appears to be following through on his commitment to restoring the
border, restricting Muslim immigration, etc. Such policies are exactly in line with those of
Israel. So why would Trump not be pro-Israel? And in fact, the stronger Israel becomes, the
less the US need aid Israel or tolerate American Israeli firsters.
The real issue is not Zionist influence in America but globalist influence in America.
Is Trump pursuing a globalist agenda that will destroy America as a coherent nation state, or
does he reject the Obama/Clinton project for the submergence of the American nation by a
flood of settlers with a contempt for Americans, especially white, Chrisitan
Americans.
"... an angry Senator Senator Grassley - who was previously stonewalled by the FBI and DOJ from getting requested information about Strzok's unexpected removal - has issued a letter demanding FBI documents in advance of an upcoming Senatorial interview with the anti-Trump FBI agent. ..."
"... The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss his knowledge of improper political influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James Comey from his position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. To date, the Committee has received no letter in reply to that request. ..."
"... All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the decision to close the Clinton investigation without recommending any charges; ..."
"... I doubt that Strzok worked alone. ..."
"... This is one of the best re-caps of this whole sordid FBI obstruction/coverup situation: Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it's a "crime to lie to us". Not for the Clintons and their associates. ..."
"... Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn't received training on handling classified information, but she signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn't carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper, who made the server possible, testified that indeed she did . ..."
Following this weekend's shocking disclosure that Peter Strzok was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
of Russia-Trump election (having previously handled the Clinton email server probe and interviewing Michael Flynn) after allegedly
having exchanged anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with his mistress (who was an FBI lawyer working for Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe), an angry Senator Senator Grassley - who was previously stonewalled by the FBI and DOJ from getting requested
information about Strzok's unexpected removal - has issued a letter demanding FBI documents in advance of an upcoming Senatorial
interview with the anti-Trump FBI agent.
In his letter to FBI director Christopher Wray, Grassley writes:
The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss his knowledge of improper political
influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James
Comey from his position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the DOJ's and FBI's activities
related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
To date, the Committee has received no letter in reply to that request.
In advance of Mr. Strzok's interview, please provide the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise,
to the Committee no later than December 11, 2017:
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to then Director Comey's draft or final statement closing
the Clinton investigation, including all records related to the change in the portion of the draft language describing Secretary
Clinton's and her associates' conduct regarding classified information from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless";
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the decision to close the Clinton investigation
without recommending any charges;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to opening the investigation into potential collusion
by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any FBI electronic communication (EC) authored or authorized by Mr.
Strzok and all records forming the basis for that EC;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to the FBI's interactions with Christopher Steele relating
to the investigation into potential collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any communications
regarding potential or realized financial arrangements with Mr. Steele;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to any instance of the FBI relying on, or referring
to, information in Mr. Steele's memoranda in the course of seeking any FISA warrants, other search warrants, or any other judicial
process;
All FD-302s of FBI interviews of Lt. Gen. Flynn at which Mr. Strzok was present, as well as all related 1A documents (including
any contemporaneous handwritten notes); and
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok containing unfavorable statements about Donald J. Trump or
favorable statements about Hillary Clinton.
Since this will be the first - and so far only - glimpse inside the ideological motivations inside Mueller's prosecutorial team
the public will be greatly interested in finding what they reveal, especially those which show any direct communication between Strzok
and Comey.
"Whoa, and there's more on Peter Strzok. He exchanged anti-Trump texts with Lisa Page, another Mueller team member with whom
he was having an affair. She's deputy to Andrew McCabe."
"Surprise – it was Hillary Clinton supporter Peter Strzok told Comey that there was no proof of "intent" – BEFORE he had interviewed
HRC."
And of course, he was involved with the sketchy interview of Cheryl Mills
And Heather Samuelson
And voila, they were given immunity
He allowed Mills and Samuelson to attend the interview with Hillary
So Strzok exonerated Hillary, led the probe into Weiner's laptop that cleared Hillary, allowed major conflicts in the Clinton
investigation, and then took control of the Steele dossier probe into Trump, all while being a rabid anti-Trump, pro-Clinton partisan
in his personal life.
And when Mueller learned of this behavior he reassigned him instead of firing him, in order to prevent word getting out to
the public.
Sessions is culpable in the obstruction of justice UNLESS there is something big going on behind the scenes. The FBI will not
provide requested documentation. The choice is going to come down to reorganizing the FBI from outside that institution. I wouldn't
have a clue about legality or process of doing that, but that is what it will come down to. You can't expect these criminals to
do it on their own or to voluntarily place their heads in a noose with documentation.
They hire agents directly out of law school (at least it used to be that way). The idea was they NOT have any life experience
(or independent judgment). It's no accident.
They're "going all in." Doesn't matter what Hand the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the Deep State
& their cohorts have been dealt.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections
/ Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
The misconception is that individuals believe we are dealing with normal, sane human beings. We're not. Far from it. What we
are dealing with are sick, twisted, Pure Evil Criminal, Psychopathic, Satanic / Lucerferian elements from the CIA / Pentagram
Temple of Set Scum literally making Hell on Earth.
What's at Stake is the Deep State Global network of MultiNational Central Banking, Espionage, Murder, War, Torture, Destabilization
Campaigns, BlackMail, Extortion, Child / Human Trafficking, Drug / Gun Running, Money Laundering, Corruption, NSA spying, Media
control & control of the 17 Intelligence Agencies.
Most importantly, The Deep State controls all the distribution lines of the aforementioned. Especially the Coaxial Cable Communication
lines of Espionage spying & Surveillance State Apparatus / Infrastructure. Agencies all built on the British Model of Intelligence.
Purely Evil & Highly Compartmentalized Levels which function as a Step Pyramid Model of Authority / Monarch Reign Pyramid Model
of Authority.
That's what's at Stake. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The Pure Evil Criminal Psychopath Rogue elements of the Deep
State will not go quietly. If not dealt with now, they'll disappear only to resurface at a later date with one objective:
Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination they seek through Power & Control.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep State Top that have had control since
the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
This impure evil has been running the world since the time of the Pharoahs, it's ancient Babylonian mysticism/paganism and
it is nothing more than the worship of Lucifer; it has never died out, it just re-emerges as something far more wicked, vile and
sinister. They are all the sons and daughters of satan and do what he does - kill, steal and destroy.
It would be Nieve to think that hundreds of thousands of years of control over mankind be simply turned over by the Criminal
Pure Evil Psychopathic Elite. The Deep State will always exist. However, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopathic Highly Compartmentalized
Rogue Levels of it are being delt with. Which is what the World is witnessing.
I'd bet there is more to the Pete Strzok story. I don't think Mueller canned him, and tried to keep that on the down-low, based
solely on Strzok's overt, naked partisanship. I'd bet that the content of Strzok's text messages, rather than the (partisan) tone
, will be revealing. Things are heating up...
How about a paragraph or 3 of detail, juxtaposing all of Trump's high crimes & misdemeanors against the Klinton machine? Keep
in mind however, you must go back 30+ years, because there are documented incidents (not rumors, innuendo or hype) of criminality
from the Klinton crime syndicate. Hopefully you have likewise documentation for Trump...
" Trumps Guilty" Guilty of what exactly? Mueller and the boys have been at it for almost a year now and coming up with a big
nothing burger. The charges Flynn peaded guilty to have nothing to do with colusion with the Russians simply ommiting details
of conversations with the Russian ambassador. Alan Dershowicz a prominate progressive and constitutional scholar and no friend
of Trump has stated in an interview he sees no basis for an obstruction of justice charge.
I doubt that Strzok worked alone. He apparently headed up the Hillary Protection Team (HPT) at the FBI. How did he
keep Hillary updated? Via Loretta Lynch?
This info request is limited...what about the Huma/Weiner computer?
The Senate smells blood in the water, but doesn't sense who will win, hence the cautious demand letter.
Pretty clear that FBI and much of DOJ have gone rogue, and no longer respond to the rest of the government.
This scandal will be so significant that it makes Watergate look like jaywalking.
You will know when the tide has turned when Democrat Senators go for DOJ blood (in order to distance themselves).
All of this will eventually be shown as something far more sinister than mere partisan agents. And those details will reveal
a whole new pattern of illegal, immoral, and traitorous conduct.
This is one of the best re-caps of this whole sordid FBI obstruction/coverup situation: Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed
Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it's a "crime to lie to us". Not for the Clintons and
their associates.
Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn't received training on handling classified information, but she
signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn't carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper,
who made the server possible, testified
that indeed she did .
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills told the same lie. These are the kinds of misstep that Team Mueller would have used to hang a
Trump associate. But Comey testified that Hillary Clinton did not lie. And that meant he was lying. Not only did Clinton's people
lie to the FBI. But the head of the FBI had lied for them.
The fix had been in all along.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WAS COMING FROM INSIDE THE FBI
please provide the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise, to the Committee no later than December
11, 2017....
First few questions for Mr. Strzok:
How many cell phones have you owned/used over the past 4 years?
Have you ever owned/used a throw away phone?
How many computers have you had/used over the past 4 years?
Have you ever owned/used/controlled a private server?
Have you ever thrown away a blackberry?
If you wanted to have private, secure communication regarding your obstruction of justice activities, would you avoid using
your office computer or cell phone?
I remain skeptical. After 46% of Americans are informed of some wrongdoing, Trump discovers it too.
Silly me, thinking that Trump, as president and having every law enforcement/spy agency at his command, should be finding out
long before me and I should be reading about what he DID, not what he is TWEETING.
Why isn't he personally confronting the principals? Remember "Your Fired"? I didn't and still don't watch TV, but I thought
he was famous for calling the person directly accountable before him, not tweeting or writing a letter to the editor or a prayer
request.
Trump didn't have this guy removed. His own people did, long ago. This is like the Mafia seeing a made man is so out of hand
that the Mafia itself turns him in.
We should be keen on watching results, not the evidence of what abject morons we are as Americans to have a government so nakedly
corrupt. I think the main problem is Americans, despite great genetics and being born into such wealthy conditions, are operating
with effective IQ's below sub-saharan Africa. If you take in television news as information, that's all a critically thinking
person needs to know about you. You're a three year old in terms of logic and reason.
I'm just too worn out with victory being right around the corner since at least as far back as Whitewater.
"... the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation. ..."
Over the weekend we noted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's top FBI investigator into
'Russian meddling', agent
Peter Strzok, was removed from the probe due to the discovery of anti-Trump text messages
exchanged with a colleague (a colleague whom he also happened to be having an extra-marital
affair with).
Not surprisingly, the discovery prompted a visceral response from Trump via Twitter:
Tainted (no, very dishonest?) FBI "agent's role in Clinton probe under review." Led Clinton
Email probe. @foxandfriends Clinton money going
to wife of another FBI agent in charge.
Alas, as it turns out, Strzok, who was blatantly exposed as a political hack by his own
wreckless text messages, also had a leading role in the Hillary email investigation. And
wouldn't you know it, as CNN has
apparently just discovered, Strzok not only held a leading role in that investigation but
potentially single-handedly saved Hillary from prosecution by making the now-infamous change in
Comey's final statement to describe her email abuses as "extremely careless" rather than the
original language of "grossly negligent."
A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar
for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key
phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state
Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the
matter.
Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private
email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier
draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the
source said. The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people
reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the
matter.
But the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former
Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he
was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with
an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those
seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation.
The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment.
Of course, as we noted a month ago (see:
First Comey Memo Concluded Hillary Was "Grossly Negligent," Punishable By Jail ), the
change in language was significant since federal law states that "gross negligence" in handling
the nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines whereas "extreme
carelessness" has no such legal definition and/or ramifications.
In fact, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the
handling of national defense documents is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison
...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan,
map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1)
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or
delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,
or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of
custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to
his superior officer -- shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years,
or both."
And just like that, the farce that has heretofore been referred to as the "Russian meddling
probe" has been exposed for what it really is...an extremely compromised political "witch
hunt".
As the phony Russian Witch Hunt continues, two groups are laughing at this excuse for a lost
election taking hold, Democrats and Russians!
This is the Mueller-Comey FBI crime family at its finest. James Comey was an highly paid
executive at Lockheed Martin just prior to being named FBI director, replacing his close
buddy Mueller who was FBI director. LM was also a high contributor to the Clinton Foundation
in its glory days, with suspicious ties to Comey's lawyer brother. Dickie Mueller seems to be
the brains of the whole cabal.
Where are the emails between this stork and the fbi page named kelly that he was having an
interoffice affair with? Its been proved she hated OUR PRESIDENT TRUMP of US(A). This stork
guy won't be getting the attention from this fbi page that he is in an interoffice
relationship with unless he acts the way she wants. Seems like these emails should be easy to
get by the lamestream wapo, failing nytimes, fakest of fake news cnn, etc.
When Strzok made the change, he provided incontrovertible proof of the FBI's obstruction
of justice in the Clinton case, as this article clearly explains:
Zero of this happens if the President hadn't been hammering in a public way for
intelligence leaks to be plugged and calling out the FBI and Comey relentlessly.....I think
it's a pretty good bet that one of the twenty seven leak investigations going on caught this
idiot..No way an Inspector General just happened upon Storks texts...that takes some
"wiretapping" or other counter measures..Now the dam has burst...Anyone defending the FBI and
it's integrity at this point needs to be hung...
Narcissist or not, early Trump interviews and views ( such as available on YouTube ) does
suggest that he has certain political talent and sound judgment about certain events like Iraq
war, 9/11 and dangers the US faces with foreign policy dominated by neocons. It's very strange
how his presidency turned out.
Notable quotes:
"... But more relevant to the discussion at hand would be the threat of Carthage while the Republic still existed. There were Senators who recognized that peace in the Mediterranean region was better served by having a competing power to balance the Roman presence. They argued passionately and rationally against wiping out Carthage, but were shouted down by the greedy hawks and others who couldn't stand having their supremacy challenged. ..."
It's pretty easy to see Trump as Nero – a wealthy, crass narcissist who really
wanted to be an actor. There's also the theory that Nero was specifically chosen over
Brittanicus in order to discredit the throne and break the Julio-Claudian dynasty, a
desperate last hope for the Republicans who had been losing ground steadily since Caesar.
But more relevant to the discussion at hand would be the threat of Carthage while the
Republic still existed. There were Senators who recognized that peace in the Mediterranean
region was better served by having a competing power to balance the Roman presence. They
argued passionately and rationally against wiping out Carthage, but were shouted down by the
greedy hawks and others who couldn't stand having their supremacy challenged.
Looks like the credibility of the US establishment might collapse under weight of all lies
that it perpetuated.
Americans and Russians should be natural partners in a multipolar world to widespread
benefit. The current situation dominated by neo-McCarthyism witch hunt is tragic. Looks like the
current neoliberal elite is truly evil, so there is not much hope for a change there. The
American people are overall decent and generous, but their abysmal lack of (or even interest) in
history and ignorance of the current events might be their undoing, I'm afraid.
Notable quotes:
"... The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is driven into the public's head. ..."
Robert Mueller, a former director of the FBI who is working as a special prosecutor
"investigating" a contrived hoax designed by the military/security complex and the DNC to
destroy the Trump presidency, has yet to produce a scrap of evidence that Russiagate is
anything but orchestrated fake news. As William Binney and other top experts have said, if
there is evidence of Russiagate, the NSA would have it. No investigation would be necessary. So
where is the evidence?
It is a revelation of how corrupt Washington is that a fake scandal is being investigated
while a real scandal is not. The fake scandal is Trump's Russiagate. The real scandal is
Hillary Clinton's uranium sale to Russia. No evidence for the former exists. Voluminous
evidence for Hillary's scandal lies in plain view. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-real-russian-collusion.html
Why are the clearly false charges against Trump being investigated and the clearly true
charges against Hillary not being investigated? The answer is that Hillary with her hostility
toward Russia and her denunciation of Russian President Putin as the "New Hitler" is not a
threat to the budget and power of the US military/security complex, while Trump's aim of
normalizing relations with Russia would deprive the military/security complex of the "enemy" it
requires to justify its massive budget and power.
Why hasn't President Trump ordered the Justice Department to investigate Hillary? Is the
answer that Trump is afraid the military/security complex will assassinate him? Why hasn't the
Justice Department undertaken the investigation on its own? Is the answer that Trump's
government is allied with his enemies?
How corrupt does Mueller have to be to agree to lead a fake investigation designed to
overthrow the democratic election of the President of the United States? Why doesn't Trump have
Mueller and Comey arrested for sedition and conspiring to overthrow the president of the United
States?
Why instead is Mueller expanding his investigation beyond his mandate and bringing charges
against Manafort and others for decade-old under-reporting of income? Why instead is Congress
harassing journalist Randy Credico for interviewing Julian Assange? How does an interview
become part of the House Intelligence (sic) Committee's investigation into "Russian active
measures directed at the 2016 U.S. election?" There were no such active measures, but the
uranium sale was real.
Why haven't the media conglomerates that have produced presstitutes instead of journalists
been broken up? Why can presstitutes lie 24/7, but a man can't make a pass at a woman?
Once you begin asking questions, there is no end of them.
The failure of the US and European media is extreme.
The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question
inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over
and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is
driven into the public's head.
Consider, for example, the Obama regime's claim to have murdered Osama bin Laden in his
"compound" in Abbottabad, Pakistan, next to a Pakistani military base. The official story had
to be changed several times. The Obama regime claim that Obama and top government officials had
watched the raid via cameras on the SEALs' helmets had to be abandoned. There was no reason to
withhold the filmed evidence, and of course there was no such evidence, so the initial claim to
have watched the killing became a "miscommunication." The staged photo of the top government
officials watching the alleged live filming was never explained.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382859/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Photo-Obama-watching-Al-Qaeda-leader-die-live-TV.html
The entire story never made any sense: Osama, unarmed and defended only by his unarmed wife,
was murdered in cold blood by a SEAL. What in the world for? Why murder rather than capture the
"terrorist mastermind" from whom endless information could have been gained? Why forgo the
political fanfare of parading Osama bin Laden before the world as a captive of the American
superpower?
Why were no photographs taken? Why was Osama's body dumped in the ocean. In other words, why
was all the evidence destroyed and nothing saved to back up the story?
Why the fake story of Osama being given a sea burial from an aircraft carrier? Why was no
media interested that the ship's crew wrote home that no such burial took place?
Did the SEAL unit have to be wiped out because the members were asking one another, "who was
on that raid?" "Were you on the bin Laden raid?" When in fact no one was on the raid.
Here is bin Laden's last confirmed interview. He says he had nothing to do with 9/11. Why
would a terrorist leader who succeed in humiliating "the world's only superpower" fail to boost
his movement by claiming credit? https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/26/the-osama-bin-laden-myth-2/
Think about this. The bin Laden story, including 9/11, is fake from start to finish, but it
is inscribed into encyclopedias, history books, and the public's consciousness.
And this is just one example of the institutionalized mass lies concocted by Washington and
the presstitutes and turned into truth. Washington's self-serving control over explanations has
removed Americans from reality and made them slaves to fake news.
So, how does democracy function when voters have no reliable information and, instead, are
led into the agendas of the rulers by orchestrated events and fake news?
Where is there any evidence that the United States is a functioning democracy?
The most important part of power elite in neoliberal society might not be financial oligarchy, but intelligence agencies elite.
If you look at the role
of Brennan in "Purple color revolution" against Trump that became clear that heads of the agencies are powerful political players
with resources at hand, that are not available to other politicians.
Notable quotes:
"... Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses. ..."
"... This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers." ..."
"... This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs. ..."
"... This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment. ..."
"... Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders. ..."
"... The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world. ..."
"... Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist. ..."
"... Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3 ..."
True existence of these multimegaton hydrogen bombs has so drastically changed the Grand Strategy of world powers that, today
and for the future, that strategy is being carried out by the invisible forces of the CIA, what remains of the KGB, and their lesser
counterparts around the world.
Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the
horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they
are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to
do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals
but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses.
This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power
elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their
ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the
name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign
powers."
The power elite is not a group from one nation or even of one alliance of nations. It operates throughout the world and no doubt
has done so for many, many centuries.
... ... ...
From this point ot view, warfare, and the preparation tor war, is an absolute necessity for the welfare of the state and for control
of population masses, as has been so ably documented in that remarkable novel by Leonard Lewin Report From Iron Mountain on
the Possibility and Desirability of Peace and attributed by Lewin to "the Special Study Group in 1966," an organization whose
existence was so highly classified that there is no record, to this day, of who the men in the group were or with what sectors of
the government or private life they were connected.
This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty,
a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger
and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs.
Not long after that great war, the world leaders were faced suddenly with the reality of a great dilemma. At the root of this
dilemma was the new fission-fusion-fission H-bomb. Is it some uncontrollable Manichean device, or is it truly a weapon of war?
... ... ...
Such knowledge is sufficient. The dilemma is now fact. There can no longer be a classic or traditional war, at least not the all-out,
go-for-broke-type warfare there has been down through the ages, a war that leads to a meaningful victory for one side and abject
defeat for the other.
Witness what has been called warfare in Korea, and Vietnam, and the later, more limited experiment with new weaponry called the
Gulf War in Iraq.
... ... ...
This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism
and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare,
economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically
designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous
loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of
war equipment.
One objective of this book is to discuss these new forces. It will present an insider's view of the CIA story and provide
comparisons with the intelligence organizations -- those invisible forces -- of other countries. To be more realistic with the priorities
of these agencies themselves, more will be said about operational matters than about actual intelligence gathering as a profession.
This subject cannot be explored fully without a discussion of assassination. Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders
at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John
F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen,
and religious leaders.
The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions
of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it
is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world.
It is essential to note that there are two principal categories of intelligence organizations and that their functions are determined
generally by the characteristics of the type of government they serve -- not by the citizens of the government, but by its leaders.
Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service
with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against
all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive
and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage,
and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union.
The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence
and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created
to be; however, it does not exist.
Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend
to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act.
As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that
National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3
The idea is to create the crime -- if they pressure Trump long enough, then
Trump may well make a mistake such as lying. Or they can dig out something really embarrassing. As the scope is deliberately very
open and the pretext is fake, this is essentially Lavrentiy Beria method: shown me the man and I will find a crime
Notable quotes:
"... They're trying to manufacture an obstruction of justice charge. Without the independent prosecutor's investigation, there would
be no opportunity for someone to lie, mislead, or inadvertently omit facts. ..."
"... The warrant's timing may also shed light on the FBI's relationship to the infamous " Steele dossier." That widely discredited
dossier claiming ties between Russians and the Trump campaign was commissioned by left-leaning research firm Fusion GPS and developed
by former British spy Christopher Steele -- who relied on Russian sources. ..."
"... But the Washington Post and others have reported that Mr. Steele was familiar to the FBI, had reached out to the agency about
his work, and had even arranged a deal in 2016 to get paid by the FBI to continue his research. ..."
"... But Mr. Mueller is not investigating the FBI, and in any event his ties to the bureau and Mr. Comey make him too conflicted
for such a job. Congress is charged with providing oversight of law enforcement and the FISA courts, and it has an obligation to investigate
their role in 2016. The intelligence committees have subpoena authority and the ability to hold those who don't cooperate in contempt.
..."
"... No investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 campaign will be credible or complete without the facts about all Mr. Comey's
wiretaps. ..."
"... And beyond delving into Comey's machinations, I think it high time to get former AG, Loretta Lynch under oath in front of a
Congressional Committee to inquire after the real substance of her supposedly impromptu meeting with Slick Willy on the airport tarmac.
..."
"... If she needs to be compelled to answer through an offer of immunity, this would be a very clarifying moment, indeed. And if
she still refuses, preferring being cited for contempt of Congress, well, that might be pretty interesting in its own right. And if
she left any trail of evidence behind her like, say for instance, relating this information to one of her staff, the staffer could be
questioned under similar terms. ..."
"... Also a good time to have a little chat with the guy from Crowdstrike, too. And on a related note, maybe a wee bit of inquiry
with Mr. Comey on the logic of the FBI in not demanding access to the server ? ..."
"... Working my way through Gibbons' Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire. There are ominous parallels to be observed between some
of the events he recounts, and events of the present day. The Praetorian Guards and the legions more generally actively manipulated
events to attain self-serving outcomes. Elements of our intelligence community seem to be treading a similar path; harrassing, crippling,
and if felt necessary working toward the eviction of a legitimately chosen President are rather obviously in play. Not, as in the case
of the Roman military, killing him, but effectively overturning the government seems to be the tactic, and all to serve their own ends,
and the Constitutional order be damned. History, as has been said, may not repeat, but it sure as hell rhymes. ..."
"... Intel agencies secretly monitored conversations of members of Congress while the Obama administration negotiated the Iran nuclear
deal. ..."
"... In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence committee staffers, though CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly
denied that. ..."
"... I have spent more than two years litigating against the Department of Justice for the computer intrusions. Forensics have revealed
dates, times and methods of some of the illegal activities. The software used was proprietary to a federal intel agency. The intruders
deployed a keystroke monitoring program, accessed the CBS News corporate computer system, listened in on my conversations by activating
the computer's microphone and used Skype to exfiltrate files. ..."
"... I was also curious to see what kind of crime would be committed under US law since anything the Russians did was just normal
state-to-state competition. ..."
"... Manafort should sue the Federal Gov for violation of his rights against unlawful search and seizure. FISA is unconstitutional
and should challenge the entire case on the basis that anything obtained was based on a FISA warrant. Force the courts and above all
else the Supreme Court to address the issue finally. Manafort is by no means an angel, but he has rights and deserves a fair shake instead
of the train ride he's on. ..."
"... With the world's 7th largest economy, what sane businessman would NOT want to cultivate relationships and develop the Russian
market, particularly since it is virtually untapped by Western companies? ..."
"... According to Martha Stewart, a false statement to a federal officer need not be sworn. ..."
"... on't understand any of this. Unless Mr Steele was entirely off the leash, which is difficult to believe, there's evidence of
our complicity in covert interference with the US Presidential elections. Then there's evidence of Israeli interference, and that overt.
Also, although it's not directly relevant here, there's sufficient evidence that the US itself pulls strings in other countries' elections.
..."
"... The criminal laws in this country are sufficiently broad and far-reaching that an aggressive prosecutor can find a reason to
imprison almost anyone, especially if the target is engaged in political or business matters of any sophistication. ..."
"... This is intentional. The laws are designed such that the people that the establishment wants to imprison are imprisoned when
they do the things the establishment doesn't want, and those people that the establishment does not want imprisoned are not. ..."
"... This is why HRC can blatantly violate the Espionage Act and then spoliate evidence with no fear of prosecution. In fact, law
enforcement twist themselves into knots to avoid conducting a serious investigation, as that might force them to act. After that farce,
Comey publicly justified conduct that (as he admitted) would send a normie on a one-way trip to a SuperMax. ..."
"... Mueller will get some scalps. Guaranteed. ..."
It appears to me that the current dream/hope in the "resistance" is that Mueller will fish around enough to come up with "evidence"
that DJT and some of the people in his campaign and administration have been witting or unwitting cultivated assets of the Russian
state for some years. I do not really understand how that would be crime under US law unless espionage against US official secrets
were involved but the political effect would be ruinous. pl
Personally, I think this investigation is patterned after the independent prosecutor's investigation of Bill Clinton. Bill was
brought down by a dalliance with an intern. If they pressure Trump long enough then Trump may well make a mistake such as lying.
Or they can use their investigative powers to find something embarrassing (they get to question everyone they want under oath
and those questioned have to answer the questions). Otherwise the investigation can just drag on forever.
I wish more people understood that this is not about Democats vs Republicans.
They're trying to manufacture an obstruction of justice charge. Without the independent prosecutor's investigation, there
would be no opportunity for someone to lie, mislead, or inadvertently omit facts.
I'm getting tired of seeing the same events trumpeted by the media and the independent prosecutor as if there was something
new. How many times can you disclose you were wiretapping one of the persons of interest or that you raided their home for documents?
I suppose that there could be a FARA violation if the person involved was involved in US foreign policy or if a false statement
were made in something official and sworn. pl
The warrant's timing may also shed light on the FBI's relationship to the infamous " Steele dossier." That widely discredited
dossier claiming ties between Russians and the Trump campaign was commissioned by left-leaning research firm Fusion GPS and
developed by former British spy Christopher Steele -- who relied on Russian sources.
But the Washington Post and others have reported that Mr. Steele was familiar to the FBI, had reached out to the agency
about his work, and had even arranged a deal in 2016 to get paid by the FBI to continue his research.
The FISA court sets a high bar for warrants on U.S. citizens, and presumably even higher for wiretapping a presidential
campaign. Did Mr. Comey's FBI marshal the Steele dossier to persuade the court?
Russian meddling is a threat to democracy but so was the FBI if it relied on Russian disinformation to eavesdrop on a presidential
campaign. The Justice Department and FBI have stonewalled Congressional requests for documents and interviews, citing the "integrity"
of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.
But Mr. Mueller is not investigating the FBI, and in any event his ties to the bureau and Mr. Comey make him too conflicted
for such a job. Congress is charged with providing oversight of law enforcement and the FISA courts, and it has an obligation
to investigate their role in 2016. The intelligence committees have subpoena authority and the ability to hold those who don't
cooperate in contempt.
Mr. Comey investigated both leading presidential campaigns in an election year, playing the role of supposedly impartial
legal authority. But his maneuvering to get Mr. Mueller appointed, and his leaks to the press, have shown that Mr. Comey is
as political and self-serving as anyone in Washington.
No investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 campaign will be credible or complete without the facts about all Mr.
Comey's wiretaps.
And beyond delving into Comey's machinations, I think it high time to get former AG, Loretta Lynch under oath in front
of a Congressional Committee to inquire after the real substance of her supposedly impromptu meeting with Slick Willy on
the airport tarmac.
If she needs to be compelled to answer through an offer of immunity, this would be a very clarifying moment, indeed. And
if she still refuses, preferring being cited for contempt of Congress, well, that might be pretty interesting in its own right.
And if she left any trail of evidence behind her like, say for instance, relating this information to one of her staff, the staffer
could be questioned under similar terms.
I rather think no staffer would be operating under the delusion that they could survive thumbing their nose at Congress like
their boss doubtless would. But then again, maybe Seth Rich's still unexplained death may serve as an incentive to them to clam
up and weather whatever consequences might flow from that decision.
Also a good time to have a little chat with the guy from Crowdstrike, too. And on a related note, maybe a wee bit of inquiry
with Mr. Comey on the logic of the FBI in not demanding access to the server ?
Probably none of this will happen however, this being arguably what we can expect from Imperial Politics; no longer are we
to recognize this as the functioning of a Constitutional Republic, sad to say.
Working my way through Gibbons' Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire. There are ominous parallels to be observed between some
of the events he recounts, and events of the present day. The Praetorian Guards and the legions more generally actively manipulated
events to attain self-serving outcomes. Elements of our intelligence community seem to be treading a similar path; harrassing,
crippling, and if felt necessary working toward the eviction of a legitimately chosen President are rather obviously in play.
Not, as in the case of the Roman military, killing him, but effectively overturning the government seems to be the tactic, and
all to serve their own ends, and the Constitutional order be damned. History, as has been said, may not repeat, but it sure as
hell rhymes.
Oh, and in a not entirely dissimilar development, in Philadelphia, and in PA, it has emerged that legal immigrants, despite
being ineligible, have registered and voted. The hend wavers at the Philadelphia Inquirer are trying to minimize this, of course.
The thought arises, if it happened in PA, what about in CA? So maybe yet again, one of President Trump's charges is true? Cue
our own crew of handwavers here at SST. Over to you, ladies and gentlemen...
Nobody wants our intel agencies to be used like the Stasi in East Germany; the secret police spying on its own citizens for
political purposes. The prospect of our own NSA, CIA and FBI becoming politically weaponized has been shrouded by untruths,
accusations and justifications.
You'll recall DNI Clapper falsely assured Congress in 2013 that the NSA was not collecting "any type of data at all on millions
or hundreds of millions of Americans."
Intel agencies secretly monitored conversations of members of Congress while the Obama administration negotiated the
Iran nuclear deal.
In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence committee staffers, though CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly
denied that.
There were also wiretaps on then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in 2011 under Obama.
The same happened under President George W. Bush to former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Calif.).
Journalists have been targeted, too. This internal email exposed by WikiLeaks should give everyone chills. It did me.
.....
I have spent more than two years litigating against the Department of Justice for the computer intrusions. Forensics
have revealed dates, times and methods of some of the illegal activities. The software used was proprietary to a federal intel
agency. The intruders deployed a keystroke monitoring program, accessed the CBS News corporate computer system, listened in
on my conversations by activating the computer's microphone and used Skype to exfiltrate files.
We survived the government's latest attempt to dismiss my lawsuit. There's another hearing Friday. To date, the Trump Department
of Justice -- like the Obama Department of Justice -- is fighting me in court and working to keep hidden the identities of
those who accessed a government internet protocol address found in my computers.
It is too early to say where this investigation is going, but there are indications that money laundering and shady real estate
transactions are scrutinized. How far up that goes, nobody knows. If close associates of Donald Trump get indicted, he will have
both legal and political problems.
Of course that is only one aspect. There may also be some serious conflict of interest problems. All of it is about to face
a burst of sunshine and that will illuminate every thing, good or bad. It appears that Donald Trump is seriously bothered by all
this activity and that in itself is interesting.
I was also curious to see what kind of crime would be committed under US law since anything the Russians did was just normal
state-to-state competition.
That happens all the time and will continue to happen all the time. Seems that if anyone on
the Trump team can be found soliciting help from a foreign source, it would be a violation of campaign finance laws. If anyone
can be tied to the hacking and theft of data or the use of that hacked data (there was a lot of voter data taken in addition to
the DNC and Podesta data), the crime would be engaging in a criminal conspiracy. Then, of course, there are the targets of opportunity
associated with any cover up like witness intimidation, perjury, obstruction of justice, and the like.
Then there is the NYAG's investigation into Trump and his associates under NY RICO laws. That investigation is still very much
alive.
All this makes me wonder who is concentrating on the Russian IO itself. There's no crime here, besides the hacks and theft
of data, but that should be the crux of the investigation in my opinion. Perhaps Mueller is doing this. I would think he'd have
to understand exactly what was done, how it was coordinated and how it was financed before he could look for any crimes related
to this whole Russia thing.
TTG, I am not following this closely enough but for whatever reason Manafort popped up on my mind. Maybe due to earlier curiosity
concerning the Ukraine. Were would he fit in? And how?
Checking spelling of his name, I realized it made headlines again.
Manafort should sue the Federal Gov for violation of his rights against unlawful search and seizure. FISA is unconstitutional
and should challenge the entire case on the basis that anything obtained was based on a FISA warrant. Force the courts and above
all else the Supreme Court to address the issue finally. Manafort is by no means an angel, but he has rights and deserves a fair
shake instead of the train ride he's on.
With the world's 7th largest economy, what sane businessman would NOT want to cultivate relationships and develop the Russian
market, particularly since it is virtually untapped by Western companies?
Exxon-Mobil certainly wanted to do that. And they don't strike me as unpatriotic dummies --
According to Martha Stewart, a false statement to a federal officer need not be sworn. The best response to an FBI agent
or any federal officer is "Have a good day Sir/Maam -- " or Buenos Dias, I prefer to have counsel with me when answering questions.
Don't understand any of this. Unless Mr Steele was entirely off the leash, which is difficult to believe, there's evidence
of our complicity in covert interference with the US Presidential elections. Then there's evidence of Israeli interference, and
that overt. Also, although it's not directly relevant here, there's sufficient evidence that the US itself pulls strings in other
countries' elections.
So whatever the Russians did or didn't do messing around with another country's elections, they're pretty far back in the queue.
I'm all for the greater readiness to investigate such matters that we see in the US; but why is the spotlight directed only into
this little corner?
Google "three felonies a day" or contemplate the words attributed to Richelieu - "Give me but six words written by the most honorable
of men, and I will find something therein to hang him with."
The criminal laws in this country are sufficiently broad and far-reaching that an aggressive prosecutor can find a reason
to imprison almost anyone, especially if the target is engaged in political or business matters of any sophistication.
This is intentional. The laws are designed such that the people that the establishment wants to imprison are imprisoned
when they do the things the establishment doesn't want, and those people that the establishment does not want imprisoned are not.
This is why HRC can blatantly violate the Espionage Act and then spoliate evidence with no fear of prosecution. In fact,
law enforcement twist themselves into knots to avoid conducting a serious investigation, as that might force them to act. After
that farce, Comey publicly justified conduct that (as he admitted) would send a normie on a one-way trip to a SuperMax.
Brennan is probably one of the key figures in color revolution against Trump that was launched after the elections...
Looks like both Brennan and Clapper suffer from the acute case of Anti-Russian paranoia along with Full Spectrum Dominance
hallucinations.
Notable quotes:
"... In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the leaders of this campaign. ..."
"... The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations ..."
"... So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions? ..."
"... There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact." ..."
"... Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria. ..."
"... In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans. After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." . ..."
"... Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference" in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News) ..."
"... So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it? ..."
"... Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program ..."
"... So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA ..."
"... As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say. ..."
"... From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper. ..."
"... Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington establishment will never allow to happen. ..."
"... What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons. ..."
"... Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. ..."
"... Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it. ..."
"... Professional liars. But, there was some question/doubt about this? ..."
"... As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. ..."
On Sunday, Former CIA Director John Brennan and Former National Intelligence Director (NID) James Clapper appeared on CNN's morning
talk show, State of the Union, to discuss Donald Trump's brief meeting with Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. The two ex-Intel chiefs were
sharply critical of Trump and wondered why the president did not "not acknowledge and embrace" the idea that Russia meddled in the
2016 elections. According to Brennan, Russia not only "poses a national security problem" for the US, but also "Putin is committed
to undermining our system, our democracy, and our whole process."
Naturally, CNN anchor, Jake Tapper, never challenged Brennan or Clapper on any of the many claims they made regarding Russia nor
did he interrupt either man while they made, what appeared to be, carefully scripted remarks about Trump, Putin and the ongoing investigation.
There were no surprise announcements during the interview and neither Brennan or Clapper added anything new to the list of allegations
that have been repeated ad nauseam in the media for the last year. The only time Tapper veered off course at all was when he asked
Brennan whether he thought "any laws were broken by the Trump campaign? Here's what Brennan said:
I'm just a former intelligence officer. I never had the responsibility for determining whether or not criminal actions were
taken. But, since leaving office on the 20th of January, I think more and more of this iceberg is emerging above the surface of
the water, some of the things that I knew about, but some of the things I didn't know about, in terms of some of the social media
efforts that Russia employed. So, I think what Bob Mueller, who, again, is another quintessential public servant, is doing is
trying to get to the bottom of this. And I think we're going to find out how large this iceberg really is.
In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small
army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted
on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a
case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the
leaders of this campaign.
The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over
again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called
Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence
of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that
cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations. Here's the money-quote from the report:
Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected
information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.
So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such
judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the
entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately
trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions?
Here's Brennan again on Sunday:
I think Mr. Trump knows that the intelligence agencies, specifically CIA, NSA and FBI, the ones that really have responsibility
for counterintelligence and looking at what Russia does, it's very clear that the Russians interfered in the election. And it's
still puzzling as to why Mr. Trump does not acknowledge that and embrace it, and also push back hard against Mr. Putin. The Russian
threat to our democracy and our democratic foundations is real.
There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings
of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows
something to be a fact."
Why is it so hard for Brennan to wrap his mind around that simple, unambiguous statement? The reason Brennan's intelligence analysts
admit that they have no proof, is because they have no proof. That might sound obvious, but we have to assume that it isn't given
that both Houses of Congress and a Special Counsel are still bogged down in an investigation that has yet to provide even a solid
lead let alone any compelling evidence.
We also have to assume that most people do not understand that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the massive investigations
that are currently underway. (What probable cause?) Adds placed in Facebook do not constitute hard evidence of foreign espionage
or election rigging. They indicate the desperation of the people who are leading the investigation. The fact that serious people
are even talking about social media just underscores the fact that the search for proof has produced nothing.
These investigations are taking place because powerful elites want to vilify an emerging geopolitical rival (Russia) and prevent
Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, not because there is any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As the Intel analysts themselves
acknowledge, there is no proof of criminal wrongdoing or any other wrongdoing for that matter. What there is, is a political agenda
to discredit Trump and demonize Russia. That's the fuel that is driving the present campaign.
Russia-gate is not about 'meddling', it's about politics. And Brennan and Clapper are critical players in the current drama. They're
supposed to be the elder statesmen who selflessly defend the country from foreign threats. But are they or is this just role-playing
that doesn't square with what we already know about the two men? Here's thumbnail sketch of Clapper written by former-CIA officer
Ray McGovern that will help to clarify the point:
Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid
the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no
WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria.
In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans.
After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was
clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." .
Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference"
in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices
of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever,
which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News)
So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing
on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it?
He also lied about spying on the American people. Why? Why would he do that? And why should we trust someone who not only spied
on us but also paved the way to war in Iraq?
And the rap-sheet on Brennan is even worse than Clapper's. Check out this blurb from Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian:
"Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and
rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping
program
Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser . In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying
when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year .
Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in
Yemen – targeting people without even knowing who they are – and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for
execution without any due process, oversight or transparency .." ("John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director
nomination", Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian)
So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone
attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing
apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA
These radical militias have been defeated largely due to Russian military intervention. Do you think that this defeat at the hands
of Putin may have shaped Brennan's attitude towards Russia?
Of course, it has. Brennan never makes any attempt to conceal his hatred for Putin or Russia.
As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust
what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a
compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are
shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say.
Which is why the Russia-gate narrative is beginning to unravel.
From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than
that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper.
Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington
establishment will never allow to happen.
What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or
less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could
have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing
away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing
his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons.
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. He is an extreme leftist
and there should be an investigation into how this wacko was allowed to join the CIA – he openly admits voting for CPUSA chief
Gus Hall in 1976. Brennan is, besides, a resentful CIA failure.
He was denied entry to the elite Directorate of Operations (or couldn't cut the mustard and was banished from it) and spent
his career stewing away in anger as a despised analyst at CIA headquarters.
Brennan spent his time at CIA attempting to undermine the organization.
Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee
brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still
at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the
FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it.
We all know that the Russiagate narrative isn't starting to unravel and this and other (wholly untrustworthy) internet authors'
claims are not proved by simply repeating them over and over again (to borrow a phrase!). In fact, Russiagate is expanding. It
has gone from mere Russian interference in the election to dubious financial transactions between wealthy Americans, including
Trump, and, to put it very politely, "dubious" Russians. It has also expanded to Europe.
What is emerging, therefore, is a collusion between wealthy Americans, no doubt with major investments in Russia, US internet
sites, probably financed by the aforementioned wealthy Americans, dubious Russian financiers, Putin, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage
and no doubt others to manipulate, perhaps rig, elections and referenda in the US and Europe. It's not about politics. It's about
money and conflicts of interest.
We also get the now standard argument that Trump is just dying to "normalize" relations with Russia but is being held back
by some dastardly group or other. As we all know, of course, "normalizing relations with Moscow" in Orwellian translates into
English as "capitulating to Putin in Ukraine". Putin's frantic attempts to get Trump to let him win in Syria is why this old line
is suddenly back on the table.
Finally, the idea of the Russian Federation as an emerging geopolitical rival is amusing. That country has existed as a sovereign
state only for about 25 years and is merely the largest piece of wreckage from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a world that
is slowly being dominated by China, Russia is a very minor player.
Brennan and Clapper are agent provocateurs for the Zionists who control the U.S. government and the 17 gestapo agencies which
in fact are controlled by dual citizen Zionists ie ISRAEL.
Brennan and Clapper are under Zionist control and thus are traitors to the constitution of America and should be tried and
sent to prison for life.
It's not about politics. It's about money and conflicts of interest.
And since when are the three not related?
It's too bad that good people, like MW, need to waste their time and energy investigating and publishing what's obviously state
sponsored utter rubbish designed to support some of the money bag crowd in one way or another.
Why does it even need to be stated that most of what's supposed to be a big deal to us prols, peasants and piss ants is nothing
but propaganda, and of a particularly transparent and low grade variety,even?
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister.
Clapper told some whoppers while he was head of all our intelligence agencies under Obama. But you are correct that Brennan
is far more toxic. He was this way under Obama and post-Obama. He has been one of the biggest Trump saboteurs. And most effective.
One ugly customer!
Why should we care if the russians spent billions on trying to exert their influence on us, we do it we have an alphabet soup
of projects to do exactly that and god knows what else to every nation on earth.In fact we do it to our own people these social
websites and "news" sites universities media etc are nothing but one huge propaganda machine intended to render democracy nothing
more than a distraction so elites can go about doing what they want.
Long ago, when car radio's still had antennae long enough to receive long wave transmissions, I often listened to BBCW radio,
848 Mhz.
I still remember the statement 'you can always tell when a politician lies, he then moves his lips'.
Capitulating to Putin in Ukraine. The assertion is that the CIA spent five billion dollar in Ukraine in order to overthrow
the legitimate democratic government. Of course nobody can prove the assertion. What is crystal clear is that the members of EU
parliament Verhofstadt, Van Baalen and Timmermans held speeches in Kiev urging the people to overthrow the government.
Their speeches could be seen live on tv, or were rebroadcast.
Timmermans held the crocodile tears speech at the UN about the MH17 victims. How, why, and through whom over 300 people were
killed in Ukraine airspace we do not know until now. All there is is vague insinuations towards Russia, the country for which
the disaster was a disaster, EU sanctions all of a sudden were possible.
That the political annexation by the west failed is best seen in E Ukraine, where the wealth is, in gas and oil. A son, and
a son in law, of Biden, and Kerry were promised well paid jobs as CEO's of companies who were to exploit the E Ukrainian wealth,
they are still waiting for the jobs.
I remember when they actually prosecuted for someone for lying to Congress. Unfortunately, it was a former baseball player
named Roger Clemons over the vitally important question of whether or not he had taken steroids. Obviously a vital question that
every sports tabloid wants to know.
I just hope that the Russians realize that with enormous power comes enormous responsibility. I hope that they'll choose the next
US president wisely.
There is real danger there is -- now that we know that the Russians can elect pretty much anyone in the US – that come the
next elections, some charismatic, possibly independent candidate, might seduce the Russians with promises of improved ties, and
after they elect him, he might turn to be a real wacko job who might end up not only worsening the ties between the superpowers,
but he might end up destroying the world. Be cautious, Russians.
If we want to talk about meddling in the election ..
Lets compare CNN giving hours and hours of free and very favorable air time to the Hillary campaign?
versus
A news website paying for a handful of thousand dollar adds on Twitter?
I remember studies that showed that during the crooked, corrupt and rigged Democratic Primaries, that there was a large disparity
in favorable stories about Hillary versus the number that were favorable for Bernie. And CNN happily seemed to give lots of airtime
to any Hillary surrogate who wanted to red bait and smear Bernie as a socialist.
We saw the same sort of disparity in the amount of favorable coverage of Trump vs Hillary. Likewise, any Hillary surrogate
who wanted to spread the official campaign message that Trump was a racist, was a fascist, and said some rude things about women
was always welcome on the CNN airwaves.
And, just recently, we had the web page editor for the NYT state publicly that they deliberately tilted their web page stories
to convince voters to vote against Trump.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg if we want to talk about how the American corporate (aka mainstream) media tried very
hard to tilt the whole election towards putting the Crooked Clintons back into the White House.
But, OMG, the story in the same corrupt media is that awful and evil RT spend a whole thousand dollars on an ad trying to promote
their website.
As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can
take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press
Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine.
Hillary is the one who spend BILLIONS trying to become President. The only thing that so far has been traced to Russia is a
few hundred thousand in Twitter Ads that otherwise served the legitimate purpose of trying to promote the web news sites. And
most of those ads didn't concern political stories, but instead stories about cute puppies to draw clicks.
The interesting development is that, after no proof for the "Russian hacking" allegations could be found, they turned to simple
ads (for amounts that are extremely small compared to what the campaigns spent) and social media postings. This was accompanied
by loosening the criteria, they did not even pretend any more that they had indications that these social media activities were
connected to the Russian state, they just had to be "Russia-linked". In the case of Twitter, this includes anyone who has ever
logged in from Russia, uses Cyrillic signs in the account metadata (that could also be connected with a number of other countries),
logged in from a Russian IP address, paid something with a Russian credit card etc., and only one condition had to be fulfilled
for an account to be counted as "Russia-linked".
Of course, with such a large country, there are certainly some social media activities that are "linked" with it. There can
be many reasons – people who travel, migrants in both directions, or simply Russians with an interest in US politics. From what
is known, the ads and postings were so diverse – some right-wing and pro-Trump, some leftwing or critical of Trump, and many not
directly linked to the elections – and distributed over a large time with many after the elections that it does not seem too unlikely
as a result of social media activities of random people who have some connection with Russia.
Of course, we may speculate in each case, why someone posted something or bought an ad. But before speculating, it would be
necessary to have data about ads and social media postings linked to other countries. For example, it could be determined with
the same criteria which ads and postings were Brazile-linked, Germany-linked, and Philippines-linked. Probably, there, a similar
random collection would emerge. Only if there is something special about the Russia-linked ads and postings, it would even make
sense to speculate about the reasons.
We don't know whether these "Russia-linked" ads and social media positings were just random activities by people related to
Russia (e.g. about 2% of the US population have Russian as their native language, some may not have many contacts with Russia
any more and don't travel there regularly, but others do) or whether a part of them was the result of an organized campaign, but
in any case, from what was written in the media, the volume of these social media activities does not seem to be very large (but
in order to judge that, social media activities linked to other countries with the same criteria would be needed).
What I find hilarious is how people sometimes try to insert a collusion angle even if it is not about hacking, but about social
media ads and postings. This becomes completely absurd. Then, the idea is that Russians contacted the Trump campaign in order
to find out which ads they should buy and what they should post on social media. Why should they do so? If the Trump campaign
had ideas about what to post and what kind of ads to buy, why didn't they just do it themselves or via an American company? What
would be the point of the Trump campaign spending $564 million on the campaign, but then do a small part of the campaign via Russians
who then spent a few thousand dollars for buying ads and posting messages the Trump campaign had advised them to via "collusion"?
After all, if they had done it themselves or via an American intermediary, there would be nothing nefarious or suspicious about
this, this idea that for a very small part of their campaign, they colluded with Russians and told them what to post and which
ads to buy almost sounds as if they deliberately wanted to behave in a strange way that could then fit a preconceived collusion
narrative. And even if they had outsourced some small part of their campaign to a Russian company for some odd reasons, would
that make it nefarious?
I think the Russiagate theorists should at least make sure that their theories don't violate basic principles of common sense.
If they want to use the hacking story, the involvement of Russian secret services might theoretically make sense – it might not
be so easy for the Trump campaign to hack servers themselves (though phishing is hardly something so sophisticated that only secret
services can do it, we're not talking about something like Stuxnet), and something illegal would be involved. That is a theory
that could in principle make sense, the only problem is, that no evidence for this is available (and the Russians are certainly
not the only ones who might have had an interest in these mails, another plausible theory is that it was an insider who disliked
how the Clinton campaign took over the DNC early on and created better conditions for Clinton than for Sanders, and it could have
been any hacker who, for some reason disliked Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Podesta). If the Russiagate theorists switch over
to simple social media activity because there is no evidence for Russian secret services being responsible for giving e-mails
to Wikileaks, they also have to sacrifice the whole "collusion" part of the story. It might be that some Russians used social
media in an organized way, but to invent a story that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russians for a small part of their social
media election campaign hardly makes sense.
The only condition under which it might somehow make sense would be if someone thought Russians are intellectually vastly superior
to Americans and know much better what potential voters care about, and their capabilities are even vastly above Cambridge Analytics.
Then, it might somehow make sense for the Trump campaign to hand over a part of the social media activities to Russians, and this
might somehow be seen as an unfair advantage – but again, if, with that assumption, the Russians are intellectually so vastly
superior that can have a significant influence with very small amounts of money and works while the Trump and Clinton campaigns
spend billions, why would they have to "collude" with the Trump campaign, people who would be intellectually so much below them
according to that assumption? Maybe real genius for targeting potential voters only emerges when Americans and Russians with complementary
abilities collaborate? In any case, it is already very difficult just to construct a version of that theory that does not violate
basic principles of common sense.
Sarcasm is probably the only way to deal with it. I find myself all the time asking people if they are serious or joking. Sadly,
many claim they are serious.
Currently it seems that peaceful and productive relations with a foreign power are Bad Things.
Mr Putin did amusingly say one time to a ditzy US 'journalist':
"Have you all lost your minds over there?"
I really truly believe that the only way to force the stupids who came up with that ridiculous story about "Russia influencing
the elections" – to drop it – is to make incessantly fun of them until they finally realize how really truly stupid they are.
The facts support this viewpoint, including the dual citizen element of it. By the way, I oppose the death penalty except if
it is applied to major serial war criminals. I recognize that all legal systems are too corrupt to be given the power of life
and death, and that this is particularly true of the US system, which sets the benchmark for corruption. The corruption of the
US political system, meanwhile, is revealed by the fact that this absurd Russiagate story is still being peddled and is accepted
as received wisdom despite the manifold evidence proving its absurd falsity. What the article shows is that Clapper and Brennan
are serial war criminals and that their latest gambit threatens our very existence. We would be better off if the utopia of a
legal system incorruptible enough to allow for the death penalty did exist in the US rather than the corrupt system allowing somebody
like Mueller to act extra-legally on this absurd basis was continuing in operation. By the way, the Canadian satellite media is
still publishing stories trying to resuscitate the Steele dossier paid by the DNC and the yankee government as factual. The whole
thing would be comical if it were not deadly serious. Those still backing the story publicly are either dangerously deluded or
criminal themselves.
The U.S. gov is a criminal organization ran by criminal for criminals and sexual perverts and pedophiles , if interested, read
these two books , THE FRANKLIN COVERUP by the late John DeCamp and THE TRANCE FORMATIO of AMERICA by Cathy Obrien and see their
interviews on YouTube, the books can be had on amazon.com.
The books reveal a shocking look at the top ones in the demonrat and republicon parties, and I do mean shocking.
"The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as
a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international
mainstream media.
The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers They claim
that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to
be paid 5000 USD after the "job is done", they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and
Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command
of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger. The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous
Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car The weapons came on
stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. "There were three or four weapons in
each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges." – witnesses Nergadze.
The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos.
"I listened to the screams," recalls Revazishvili. "There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was
to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart."
Four years later, Revazishvili and his two companions report they have not yet received the promised 5000 USD bills as a payment
and have decided to tell the truth about those who "used and abandoned" them."
Well that was a clear picture of a sausage-making during the US-sponsored regime change in Ukraine. The neo-Nazi in the US-supported
"government" in Kiev came about naturally.
An addition to the previous post.
The Maidan revolution and its neo-Nazi consequence makes an amazing monument to the Kagans' clan:
"Thousands of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists marched in Kiev, Thursday, celebrating the 106th birthday of the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) leader Stepan Bandera [famous Nazis collaborator]. Among the main organisers were representatives
of Right Sector and Svoboda." https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a7_1420142767#gDHooVSL6b0yQ1SG.99
"Members of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Azov volunteer battalion and their ultranationalist civilian sympathizers have conducted
a torchlit procession in the center of the eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol, held under the slogan "coming after you!"
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_72571.shtml
The wide-spread desecration of Jewish cemetries by Ukrainian thugs (a post-Maidan phenomenon) has spilled to Poland: "Yet another
case of vandalism by Ukrainian nationalists is on the record in Poland. This time, an old Jewish cemetery in Kraków became the
target of thugs from the neighboring state. The graves of Polish Jews who died over a century ago were destroyed by those hot-blood
Ukrainians."
https://www.reddit.com/r/antisemitism/comments/5npnj5/ukrainian_nationalists_stand_behind_desecration/
"Vandals desecrated the Korinovskaya Jewish Cemetery in Kiev. They destroyed two entire sections: 27 and 28. These acts of
vandalism are very systematic: every night they destroy one or two headstones. According to the elderly women who look after the
place, these vandals are usually drunken youths who come there to wreak destruction. The Zaddik of Chernobyl is buried in this
cemetery. These vandals destroyed his gravestone, smearing Satanic Cult symbols on it."
"... "President Trump instructed [his generals] in a very open way that the YPG will no longer be given weapons. He openly said
that this absurdity should have ended much earlier ," Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu told reporters after the phone call. ..."
"... The YPG is the Syrian sister organization of the Turkish-Kurdish terror group PKK. Some weapons the U.S. had delivered to the
YPK in Syria to fight the Islamic State have been recovered from PKK fighters in Turkey who were out to kill Turkish security personal.
Despite that, supply for the YPG continued. In total over 3,500 truckloads were provided to it by the U.S. military. Only recently the
YPK received some 120 armored Humvees , mine clearance vehicles and other equipment. ..."
"... The generals in the White House and other parts of the administration were caught flat-footed by the promise Trump has made.
The Washington Post writes : "Initially, the administration's national security team appeared surprised by the Turks' announcement and
uncertain what to say about it. The State Department referred questions to the White House, and hours passed with no confirmation from
the National Security Council." ..."
"... The U.S. military uses the YPG as proxy power in Syria to justify and support its occupation of north-east Syria, The intent
of the occupation is , for now, to press the Syrian government into agreeing to a U.S. controlled "regime change": ..."
"... When in 2014 the U.S. started to use Kurds in Syria as its foot-soldiers, it put the YPG under the mantle of the so called
Syrian Democratic Forces and paid some Syrian Arabs to join and keep up the subterfuge. This helped to counter the Turkish argument
that the U.S. was arming and supporting terrorists. But in May 2017 the U.S. announced to arm the YPG directly without the cover of
the SDF. The alleged purpose was to eliminate the Islamic State from the city of Raqqa. ..."
"... A spokesperson of the SDF, the ethnic Turkman Talaf Silo, recently defected and went over to the Turkish side. The Turkish
government is certainly well informed about the SDF and knows that its political and command structure is dominated by the YPK. The
whole concept is a sham. ..."
"... Sometimes it's hard to see if Trump actually believed what he was saying about foreign policy on the campaign trail -- but
either way it doesn't matter much as he seems incapable of navigating the labyrinth of the Deep State even if he had in independent
thought in his head. I don't expect US weapons to stop making their way into Kurdish hands as they try to extend their mini-Israel-with-oil
foothold in Syria. But it would certainly be a welcome sight if the US left Syria alone for once! ..."
"... Trump personally sent General Flynn to recruit back Erdogan and the Turks right before the election. Flynn wrote his now infamous
editorial "Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support" and published in "The Hill". http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/305021-our-ally-turkey-is-in-crisis-and-needs-our-support
..."
"... But if you know the role he played for Trump in the campaign and then the post-election role as soon to be NSC advisor, you
will see that Trump was sending him to bring Turkey back into the fold after the coup attempt by CIA, Gulen and Turkey's AF and US State
Dept failed. ..."
"... Trump wanted to prevent the Turkish Stream. It was a huge rival to his LNG strategy. All these are why Flynn did what he did
for Trump. Now Trump has to battle CIA and State, as well as the CENTCOM-Israeli plans for insurgencies in Syria. It's not just the
Kurd issue or the other needs of NATO to hold the bases in Turkey. It's the whole southwest containment of Russian gas and Russian naval
power, and the reality of sharing the Mediterranean as well as MENA with the Bear. ..."
"... Furthermore, I've always been suspicious of Erdogan's 'turn' toward Russia. Many have suspected that the attempted coup was
staged by Erdogan (with CIA help?) so as to enable Erdogan to remain in office. IMO Erdogan joined the 'Assad must go!' effort not just
because he benefited from the oil trade but because he leans toward Sunnis (Surely he was aware of the thinking that: the road to Tehran
runs through Damascus .) ..."
President Trump is attempting to calm down the U.S.
conflict with Turkey . The
military junta in the White House has different
plans. It now attempts to circumvent the decision the president communicated to his Turkish counterpart. The result will be more
Turkish-U.S. acrimony.
Yesterday the Turkish foreign minister surprisingly
announced a phone call
President Trump had held with President Erdogan of Turkey.
United States President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan spoke on the phone on Nov. 24 only days after
a Russia-Turkey-Iran summit on Syria, with Ankara saying that Washington has pledged not to send weapons to the People's Protection
Units (YPG) any more .
"President Trump instructed [his generals] in a very open way that the YPG will no longer be given weapons. He openly said
that this absurdity should have ended much earlier ," Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu told reporters after the phone call.
Will be speaking to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey this morning about bringing peace to the mess that I inherited
in the Middle East. I will get it all done, but what a mistake, in lives and dollars (6 trillion), to be there in the first place!
12:04 PM - 24 Nov 2017
During the phone call Trump must have escaped his minders for a moment and promptly tried to make, as announced, peace with Erdogan.
The issue of arming the YPG is really difficult for Turkey to swallow. Ending that would probably make up for the
recent NATO blunder of presenting the founder of modern Turkey Kemal Atatürk and Erdogan himself as enemies.
The YPG is the Syrian sister organization of the Turkish-Kurdish terror group PKK. Some weapons the U.S. had delivered to
the YPK in Syria to fight the Islamic State have been
recovered from PKK fighters in Turkey who were out to kill Turkish security personal. Despite that, supply for the YPG continued.
In total over
3,500 truckloads
were provided to it by the U.S. military. Only recently the YPK received
some 120 armored Humvees ,
mine clearance vehicles and other equipment.
The generals in the White House and other parts of the administration were caught flat-footed by the promise Trump has made.
The Washington Post
writes : "Initially, the administration's national security team appeared surprised by the Turks' announcement and uncertain
what to say about it. The State Department referred questions to the White House, and hours passed with no confirmation from the
National Security Council."
The White House finally released what the Associated Presscalled :
a cryptic statement about the phone call that said Trump had informed the Turk of "pending adjustments to the military support
provided to our partners on the ground in Syria."
Neither a read-out of the call nor the statement AP refers to are currently available on the White House website.
The U.S. military uses the YPG as proxy power in Syria to justify and support
its
occupation of north-east Syria, The intent of the occupation is , for now,
to press the Syrian government into agreeing to a U.S. controlled "regime change":
U.S. officials have said they plan to keep American troops in northern Syria -- and continue working with Kurdish fighters --
to pressure Assad to make concessions during peace talks brokered by the United Nations in Geneva, stalemated for three years
now. "We're not going to just walk away right now," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said last week.
To solidify its position the U.S. needs to further build up and strengthen its YPG mercenary forces.
When in 2014 the U.S. started to use Kurds in Syria as its foot-soldiers, it put the YPG under the mantle of the so called
Syrian Democratic Forces and paid some Syrian Arabs to join and keep up the subterfuge. This helped to counter the Turkish argument
that the U.S. was arming and supporting terrorists. But in May 2017 the U.S.
announced
to arm the YPG directly without the cover of the SDF. The alleged purpose was to eliminate the Islamic State from the city of Raqqa.
The YPG had been unwilling to fight for the Arab city unless the U.S. would provide it with more money, military supplies and
support. All were provided. The U.S. special forces, who control the YPG fighters, directed an immense amount of aerial and artillery
ammunition against the city. Any potential enemy position was destroyed by large ammunition and intense bombing before the YPG infantry
proceeded. In the end few YPG fighters died in the fight. The Islamic State was let go or eliminated from the city but
so was the city of Raqqa . The intensity
of the bombardment of the medium size city was at times ten
times greater than the bombing in all of Afghanistan. Airwarsreported :
Since June, an estimated 20,000 munitions were fired in support of Coalition operations at Raqqa . Images captured by journalists
in the final days of the assault show a city in ruins
Several thousand civilians were killed in the indiscriminate onslaught.
The Islamic State in Syria and Iraq is defeated. It no longer holds any ground. There is no longer any justification to further
arm and supply the YPG or the dummy organization SDF.
But the generals want to continue to do so to further their larger plans. They are laying grounds to circumvent their president's
promise. The Wall Street Journal seems to be the only outlet to
pick up on the subterfuge:
President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to stop sending weapons directly to Kurdish militants battling Islamic State
in Syria, dealing a political blow to the U.S.'s most reliable ally in the civil war, officials said Friday.
...
The Turkish announcement came as a surprise in Washington, where military and political officials in Mr. Trump's administration
appeared to be caught off-guard. U.S. military officials said they had received no new guidance about supplying weapons to the
Kurdish forces. But they said there were no immediate plans to deliver any new weapons to the group. And the U.S. can continue
to provide the Kurdish forces with arms via the umbrella Syrian militant coalition
The "military officials" talking to the WSJ have found a way to negate Trump's promise. A spokesperson of the SDF, the ethnic
Turkman Talaf Silo, recently
defected and went over to the Turkish side. The Turkish government is certainly well informed about the SDF and knows that its
political and command structure is dominated by the YPK. The whole concept is a sham.
But the U.S. needs the YPG to keep control of north-east Syria. It has to continue to provide whatever the YPG demands, or it
will have to give up its larger scheme against Syria.
The Turkish government will soon find out that the U.S. again tried to pull wool over its eyes. Erdogan will be furious when he
discovers that the U.S. continues to supply war material to the YPG, even when those deliveries are covered up as supplies for the
SDF.
The Turkish government released
a photograph showing
Erdogan and five of his aids taking Trump's phonecall. Such a release and the announcement of the call by the Turkish foreign minister
are very unusual. Erdogan is taking prestige from the call and the public announcement is to make sure that Trump sticks to his promise.
This wide publication will also increase Erdogan's wrath when he finds out that he was again deceived.
Posted by b on November 25, 2017 at 12:14 PM |
Permalink
Sometimes it's hard to see if Trump actually believed what he was saying about foreign policy on the campaign trail -- but
either way it doesn't matter much as he seems incapable of navigating the labyrinth of the Deep State even if he had in independent
thought in his head. I don't expect US weapons to stop making their way into Kurdish hands as they try to extend their mini-Israel-with-oil
foothold in Syria. But it would certainly be a welcome sight if the US left Syria alone for once!
Some
interpret this act on Election eve as a pecuniary fulfillment by Flynn of a lobbying contract (which existed).
But if you know the role he played for Trump in the campaign and then the post-election role as soon to be NSC advisor,
you will see that Trump was sending him to bring Turkey back into the fold after the coup attempt by CIA, Gulen and Turkey's AF
and US State Dept failed.
Flynn understood the crucial need for US and NATO to hold Turkey and prevent the Russians from getting Erdogan as an ally for
Syria and the Black Sea, the Balkans and Mediterranean as well as Iran, Qatar and Eurasia. Look at what has transpired between
Turkey and Russia since. Gas will be flowing through the Turkish Stream and Erdogan conforms to Putin's wishes.
Trump wanted to prevent the Turkish Stream. It was a huge rival to his LNG strategy. All these are why Flynn did what he
did for Trump. Now Trump has to battle CIA and State, as well as the CENTCOM-Israeli plans for insurgencies in Syria. It's not
just the Kurd issue or the other needs of NATO to hold the bases in Turkey. It's the whole southwest containment of Russian gas
and Russian naval power, and the reality of sharing the Mediterranean as well as MENA with the Bear.
Flynn was on it for Trump. And the IC and State want him prosecuted for defying their efforts to replace Erdogan with a stooge
like Gulen. It looks like Mueller is pursuing that against the General.
Its not a problem for US to drop Kurds if they are no longer needed, BUT for now they are essential for US/Israel/Saudi goals,
therefore you can bet 100% Kurds support will continue. Trump's order (he hasn't made it official either) will be easily circumvented.
The real question is, what Resistance will do with the backstabbing Kurds? It wont be easy to make a deal while Kurds
maintain absurd demands and as long as they have full Axis of Terror support.
Go Iraq's way like they reclaimed Kirkuk? US might have sitten out that one, I doubt they'll allow this to happen in Syria
as well, unless they get something in return.
While America's standard duplicity of saying one thing while doing the opposite has been known for decades, they have been able
to play games mainly because of the weakness of the other actors in the region.
The tables have turned now, but America still thinks it holds top dog position.
Wordplay, semantics and legal loopholes wont be tolerated for very long, and when hundreds of US boots return home in body bags
a choice will have to be made - escalate, or run away.
Previous behavior dictates run away, but times have changed.
A cornered enemy is the most dangerous, and the USA has painted itself into a very small corner...
Gee. While reading B's article what got to my mind is: "Turkey is testing the ground". Whatever Trump said to Erdogan on the phone,
it seems to me that the Turks are playing a card to see how the different actors in the US that seems to follow different agendas
will react. If Turkey concludes that the US will continue to back YPG, it's split from the US and will be definitive.
Erdogan is shifting away from US/NATO. He even hinted today that he might talk to Assad. That's huge! I wouldn't be surprised
if Turkey leaves NATO sooner than later. And if it's the case, it will be a major move of a tectonic amplitude.
Trump.. "Will be speaking to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey this morning about bringing peace to the mess that I inherited
in the Middle East. I will get it all done, but what a mistake, in lives and dollars (6 trillion), to be there in the first place!"
Surely by now Erdogan must realise that whatever the US President says and promises will be circumvented by the State Department,
the Pentagon, the 17 US intel agencies (including the CIA and the NSA) and rogue individuals in these and other US government
departments and agencies, and in Congress as well (Insane McCain comes to mind)? Not to mention the fact that the Israeli government
and the pro-Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill exercise huge influence over sections of the US government.
If Erdogan hasn't figured out the schizoid behaviour of the US from past Turkish experience and the recent experience of Turkey's
neighbours (and the Ukraine is one such neighbour), he must not be receiving good information.
Though as Jean says, perhaps Erdogan is giving the US one last chance to demonstrate that it has a coherent and reliable policy
towards the Middle East.
Well, the US policy has been coherent and reliable in the last years. It enhanced local conflicts, supported both sides at
the same time but with different intensities. Whoever wins would be "our man". Old stuff since the Byzantine period. It always
takes a lot of time to prove the single actions that were done. In most cases we learn about it years later. The delay is so big
and unpleasant that quite a number of folks escapes to stupid narratives that explain everything in one step, and therefore nothing.
By the way: is the interest of Kurds to remain under the umbrella of the Syrian state but not be governed by Baath type of Arabic
nationalism illegitimate?
The Kurds (PKK basically) are only necessary to give a "face" to the force the US is trying to align in E. Syria. The "fighting"
against ISIS (if there really was any) is coming to a close. The Chiefs of ISIS have been airlifted to somewhere nearby, and the
foreign mercenary forces sent elsewhere by convoy. ALL the valuable personnel have now become "HTS2" with reversible vests. These,
plus the US special forces are the basis of a new armed anti-Syrian force. (Note that one general let slip that there are 5'000
US forces in E-Syria - not the 500 spoken of in the MSM).
So Trump may well be correct in saying that the Kurds (specifically) will not get any more arms - because they have other demands
and might make peace with the Syrian Government, to keep at least some part of their territorial gains. The ISIS "bretheren" and
foreign mercenaries do not want any peaceful solution because it would mean their elimination.. So The CIA and Pentagon will probably
continue arms supplies to "HTS2" - but not the Kurds.
(ex-ISIS members; Some are from Saudi Arabia, Qatar - the EU and the US, as well as parts of Russia and China. They are not
farming types but will find themselves with some of the best arable land in Syria. Which belonged to Syrian-arabs-christians-Druzes-Yadzis
etc. Who wil want their properties back.)
Note that the US forces at Tanf are deliberately not letting humanitarian help reach the nearby refugee camp. Starvation and
deprivation will force many of the younger members to become US paid terrorists.
thanks b.. i tend to agree with @4 jean and @5 jen... the way i see it, there is either a real disconnect inside the usa where
the president gets to say one thing, but another part of the establishment can do another, or trump has made his last lie to turkey
here and turkey is going to say good bye to it's involvement with the usa in any way that can be trusted.. seems like some kind
of internal usa conflict to me at this point, but maybe it is all smoke and mirrors to continue on with the same charade.. i mostly
think internal usa conflict at this point..
Odd that no one has mentioned the fact the US was behind the attempted coup, where Erdogan was on a plane with two rogue Syrian
jets that stood down rather than execute the kill shot. I have read opinion that the fighter pilots were "lit up" by Russian missile
batteries and informed by radio they would not survive unless they shut down their weapons targeting immediately. This is probably
a favour Putin reminds Erdogan of on a regular basis, whenever Erdo tries to play Sultan. The attempted coup/asassination also
shows Erdogan exactly how much he can trust the US/Zionists at any level.
And Edrogan must also know Syria was once at least partly in the US-orbit, as Syria was the destination for many well-documented
US-ordered rendition/torture cases. It is probable Mossad (or their proxy thugs) killed Assad's father and older brother, so Erdo
knows he's better relying on Putin than Trumpty Dumbdy.
Erdogan is about to make a u-turn toward Syria. He is furious at Saudi Arabia for boycotting its ally Qatar, for talking about
owning Sunni Islam and by the continuous support of Islamists and Sunni Kurds in Syria.
Erdogan is preparing the turkish public opinion to a shift away from the USA-Israeli axis. This may get him many points in the
2019 election if the war in Syria is stopped, most Syrian refugees are back, Turkish companies are involved in the reconstruction
and the YPG neutralized. Erdogan has 1 year and half to make this to happen. For that he badly needs Bashar al Assad and his army
on his side.
Therefore he is evaluating what is the next move and he needs to know where the USA is standing about Turkey and Syria. Until
now the messages from the USA are contradictory yet Erdogan keeps telling his supporters that the USA is plotting against Turkey
and against Islam. Erdogan's reputation also is been threatened by the outcome of Reza Zarrab's trial in the US where the corruption
of his party may be exposed.
That is why Erdogan is making another check about the US intentions before Erdogan he starts the irreversible shift toward
the Iran-Russia (+Qatar and Syria) axis.
missing in this analysis is oil gas ... producers, refiners, slavers, middle crooks, and the LNG crowd :Israel, Fracking, LNG
and wall street... these are the underlying directing forces that will ultimately dictate when the outsiders have had enough fight
against Assad over Assad's oil and Assad's refusal to allow outsiders to install their pipelines. Until then, gangland intelligence
agencies will continue the divide, destroy and conquer strategies sufficient to keep the profits flowing. The politicians cannot
move until the underlying corruptions resolve..
The word 'byzantine' has been used for centuries to describe the intricate and multi-leveled forms of agreement, betrayal, treachery
and achievement among the shifting power brokers in the region. The US alone has three major and another three minor players at
work - often fighting each other. If however, it thinks it can outplay people whose lives are steeped in such a living tradition,
it is sadly deluded and will one day be in for a very rude surprise. Even the Russians have had difficulty navigating that maze.
When confronted with such a 'Gordian knot' of treachery and shifting alliances, Alexander the Great drew his sword and cut
through it with a vision informed by the sage Socrates as taught by Aristotle.
Despite claiming to represent such a western heritage, the US has no such Socratic wisdom, no Aristotelian logic, and no visionary
leadership that could enable it to do what Alexander did. Lacking this, it is destined to get lost in its' own hubris, and be
consumed by our current version of that region's gordian knot.
'...By the way: is the interest of Kurds to remain under the umbrella of the Syrian state but not be governed by Baath type
of Arabic nationalism illegitimate?..'
...showing that he either knows only the crap spouted by wikipedia...or nothing at all about the Baath party...
...which happens to be a socialist and secular party interested in pan-Arab unity...not nationalism...[an obvious oxymoron
to be pan-national and 'nationalist' at the same time...]
Of course there is always a 'better way'...right Hausmaus...?
The Baath socialism under Saddam in Iraq was no good for anyone we recall...especially women, students, sick people etc...
A 'better way' has since been installed and it is working beautifully...all can agree...
Same thing in Libya...where the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was no good for anyone...
Of course everyone wanted the 'Better Way'...all those doctoral graduates with free education and guaranteed jobs...a standard
of living better than some European countries...etc...
Again...removing the 'socialist' Kadafi has worked out wonderfully...
We now have black African slaves sold in open air markets...where before they did all the broom pushing that was beneath the
dignity of the Libyan Arabs...
...and were quite happy to stay there and have a job and paycheck...instead of now flooding the shores of Italy in anything
that can float...
Oh yes...why would anyone in Syria want to be governed by the socialist Baath party...?
...especially the Kurds...who just over the border in Turkey are not even recognized as humans...never mind speaking their
own language...
I'd really hoped that Donald Trump® would be the "outsider" that both the MSM and he have been insisting he is for the past couple
of years. Other than the Reality TV Show faux conflicts with which the MSM entertains us nightly, I see no such "rogue" Administration.
This say one thing, and do the other has been US foreign policy forever.
Recall, for instance that on February 21, 2014, Obama's State Department issued a statement hailing Ukrainian President Yanukovych
for signing an agreement with the "pro-democracy Maidan Protest" leaders in which he acquiesced to all of their demands.
Then, on February 22, 2014, the US State Department cheered the "peaceful and Constitutional" coup after neo-nazis stormed
the Parliament.
A few months later, Secretary of State Kerry hailed the Minsk Treaty to end the war in Ukraine. Later that day, Vickie Nuland
said there was no way her Ukies would stop shelling civilians, and sure enough they didn't (until they'd been on the retreat for
weeks, and came whimpering back to the negotiations table).
A couple years later, Kerry announced that the US and Russia would coordinate aerial assaults in Syria. The next day, "Defense"
Secretary Carter said, "no way," and within a week or so, we "accidentally" bombed Syrian forces at Deir ez Zoir for over an hour.
From my perspective, they keep us chasing the next squirrel, while bickering amongst each other about each squirrel. But the
wolves are still devouring the lambs, with only the Bear preventing a complete extinction.
What we know with at least some level of confidence...
Dump is not the 'decider'...the junta is...he's just a cardboard cutout sitting behind the oval office desk...
And he's got no one to blame but himself...he came in talking a big game about cleaning house and got himself cleaned out of
being an actual president...
This was inevitable from the moment he caved on Flynn...the only person he didn't need to vet with the senate...and a position
that wields a lot of power...
This was his undoing on many levels...not only because he faced a hostile deep state and even his own party in congress with
no one by his side [other than Flynn]...
...but because it showed that he had no balls and would not stand by his man...
This is not the stuff leaders are made of...
The same BS we see with Turkey is playing out with Russia on the Ukraine issue...
Now the junta and their enablers in congress want to start sending offensive arms to Ukraine...Dump and his platitudes to Putin...no
matter how much he may mean it...mean nothing...he's not in charge...
I think that Jean @4 has the best take on this: Erdoğan went very public on Trump's "promise" in a classic put-up-or-shut-up challenge
to the USA.
Either the word of a POTUS means something or it doesn't, and if it doesn't then Turkey is going to join Russia in concluding
that the USA as simply not-agreement-capable.
Erdoğan will then say "enough!!!", give the USA the two-finger-salute, and then take Turkey out of NATO.
And the best thing about it will be that McMaster, Kelly and Mathis will be so obsessed with playing their petty little games
that they won't see it coming.
It's hard to tell what Erdoğan is doing or intending other than that he is navigating something - objective TBD. It'll be interesting
to see if he constrains the use of Incirlik airbase should the US keep arming the YPG/PKK forces. Airpower is the enabler (sole
enabler, IMO) of the/any Kurdish overreach inside Syria. Seems like Erdoğan holds the ace card in this muddle but has yet to play
it.
Seems like Turkey has more than one card to play. A commenter on another site mentioned recently that the US really doesn't
want Erdogan to have that S-400 system from Russia. Got me thinking, could Russia have deliberately loaded Erdogan's hand with
that additional card to help him negotiate with the US?
Turkey may well leave NATO and as others have pointed out, this would be a game changer far beyond the matter of the US's illegal
presence in NE Syria. This possibility brings immense existential gravitas to Erdogan's position right now. He could ask
for many concessions at this point, not to leave. And from the Eurasian point of view, it doesn't matter if he leaves or stays,
while from the western view, it matters greatly.
Would the US give up Syria, in order to keep Turkey in NATO? It's a western dichotomy, not one that affects Asia. It would
be simple to throw S-400 at that dynamic to watch it squirm.
The plays the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.
- Hamlet
As the endgame plays out, Erdogan's conscience may be revealed.
b has made the point that the partition that US-led proxy forces have carved out is unsustainable. But it would be sustainable
if Erdogan can be convinced to allow trade via Turkey.
For that reason, I thought Trump's ceasing direct military aid to the Kurds made sense as it provided Erdogan with an excuse
to allow land routes for trade/supply. Erdogan can argue that he wants to encourage such good behavior and doesn't want to make
US an enemy (Turkey is still a NATO country).
Furthermore, I've always been suspicious of Erdogan's 'turn' toward Russia. Many have suspected that the attempted coup
was staged by Erdogan (with CIA help?) so as to enable Erdogan to remain in office. IMO Erdogan joined the 'Assad must go!' effort
not just because he benefited from the oil trade but because he leans toward Sunnis (Surely he was aware of the thinking that:
the road to Tehran runs through Damascus .)
Hasn't Erdogan's vehement anti-Kurdish stance done R+6 a disservice? It seems to me that it has helped USA to convince
Kurds to fight for them and has also been a convenient excuse for Erdogan to hold onto Idlib where al Queda forces have refuge.
If Erdogan was really soooo angry with Washington, and soooo dependent on Moscow, then why not relax his anti-Kurdish
stance so as to bring Kurds back into the Syrian orbit?
Jackrabbit @20:
Erdogan may feel that if he relaxed his stance against the Syrian Kurds, it could embolden Turkish Kurds to further pursue their
agenda. It would also make him appear weak towards his supporters.
Erdogan is NOT going to leave NATO. Why should he? It would be the stupidest chess move ever? He's in the club and they can't
kick him out. He can cause all the trouble he wants and hobble that huge machine that is the western alliance. He will not get
EU membership, but he has his NATO ID CARD and that ain't bad. Erdo now knows that the poor bastard Trumps is WORTHLESS that he
is a toothless executive in name only. This is a wake up call, if I were Erdo, I would be very afraid of the USA and it's Syria,
MENA policy. It is being run by LUNATICS and is a slow moving train wreak. So for now, Erdo must be looking at Moscow, admiring
Putin for this is a man who has his shit together and truly knows how to run a country. Maybe even a sense of admiration and more
respect for Putin is even present. If I were Erdo, I'd double down in my support for Russia's Syria policy.
You do not get it:
„...which happens to be a socialist and secular party interested in pan-Arab unity...not nationalism..."
According to this ideology the coherence of a society comes from where? And who is excluded if one applies it?
So your contribution is just a rant using rancidic rhetoric tools. But I will not call you „flunkerbandit". My advice is to move
to this area and have a look into such a society from a more close position. Armchair type of vocal leadership does not help.
@23 "Erdogan is NOT going to leave NATO. Why should he?"
I guess one possible reason would be this: as long as Turkey remains in NATO then he is obliged to allow a US military presence
in his country, and that's just asking for another attempt at a military coup.
After all, wasn't Incirlik airbase a hotbed of coup-plotters during the last coup attempt?
"when the Syrian settlement is achieved, Syria's democratic forces will join the Syrian army." "When the Syrian state stabilizes, we can say that the Americans did what they said, then withdraw as they did in Iraq and
set a date for their departure and leave."
Nothing new here, nothing good either. Kurds so far are keeping up their demands of de-facto independence under fig-leaf of
"we are part of federalised Syria" with weak central government and autonomous Kurds. Thats how US plan to castrate Syria. Russia
offered cultural autonomy, Kurds rejected.
As for Americans "withdrawing" willfully, it never happened. Iraq had to kick them out, and then US used ISIS and Kurds to
get back in.
As for Syria's stabilization part, US is doing everything in its power to prevent it.
@Yeah Right #26
Turkey is not obliged to keep foreign troops in their country to remain in NATO. De Gaulle invited the US to leave France in 1967
but is still a member of NATO
@31 France actually withdrew from NATO in 1966. It remained "committed" to the collective defence of western Europe, without being,
you know, "committed" to it.
So, yeah, France kicked all the foreign troops out of France in 1967, precisely because its withdrawal from NATO's Integrated
Military Command meant that the French were no longer under any obligation to allow NATO troops on its soil.
But France had to formally withdraw from that Command first, and the reason that de Gaulle gave for withdrawing were exactly
that: remaining meant ceding sovereignty to a supra-national organization i.e. NATO Integrated Military Command.
That France retained "membership" of NATO's political organizations even after that withdrawal was little more than a fig-leaf.
After all, NATO's purpose isn't "political", it is "military".
"The Decider" is Trump's apparent self image. He can't be enjoying the Presidency and the controls exerted upon him by others
among the "Deep State" (whom I suppose have effectively cowed him into behaving via serious threats).
If he already had money and power, as it appears that he had, he gained little by taking the crown. He has less power because
he is now controlled by a number of forces (CIA, NSA, Media, MIC and etc.) as he remains under constant assault by his natural
opposition.
Big mistake dumping Flynn.
Now you take another kind of asshole in the person of Obama - a guy that had nothing - you have a malleable character who enjoys
the pomp and circumstance. Really didn't need any persuading to do anything required of him.
Here is a recent report from the Turkish Prime Minister supporting Trump's "lie" about ending support for the Kurds....what will
history show occured?
ISTANBUL, Nov. 26 (Xinhua) -- Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said on Sunday that his country is expecting the United
States to end its partnership with the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military wing, the People's Protection
Units (YPG).
"Since the very beginning, we have said that it is wrong for the U.S. to partner with PKK's cousin PYD and YPG in the fight
against Daesh (Islamic State) terrorist group," Yildirim told the press in Istanbul prior to his departure for Britain.
Ankara sees the Kurdish groups as an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) fighting against the Turkish government
for over 30 years, while Washington regards them as a reliable ground force against the Islamic State (IS), also known as Daesh.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday spoke to his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan over the phone, pledging not to
provide weapons to the YPG any more, an irritant that has hurt bilateral ties, according to the Turkish side.
Yildirim noted that Washington has described it as an obligation rather than an option to support the Kurdish groups on the
ground. "But since Daesh (IS) is now eliminated then this obligation has disappeared," he added.
It would be nice if Erdogan when withdrawing from NATO (Assuming he does this in the next 12-18 months) would say something like.
"We really like President Trump - and we trust his word implicitly. The problem is, although we trust his word, we know
he is not in control so his word is useless and best ignored. Though of course - we still trust he means well."
That would be a nice backhander to hear from Erdopig.
Speculation about Turkey leaving NATO seems farfetched. Turkey has NATO over a barrel. It has been a member for decades and what
would it gain by leaving? Nothing. By staying it continues to influence and needle at the same time. Turkey will only leave when
NATO throws it out, which isn't going to happen.
Perestroika and Trump_vs_deep_state has one important thing in common -- they arose out of deep crisis of the
Soviet Society and the US neoliberal society, correspondingly
Notable quotes:
"... The reasoning of Gorbachev's program of perestroika -- as an attempt to both transcend tired Soviet orthodoxies while remaining loyal to the underlying assumptions of the regime -- also explains the attraction of Trump_vs_deep_state to many conservative intellectuals, voters, and activists. Trump_vs_deep_state gives its followers the allure of reckoning with the conservative movement's inadequacies while remaining faithful to its underlying assumptions about economics and the role of the state. ..."
"... For all its recklessness, it is this faction of Right that has indeed grappled with a nation whose poor- and lower-middle class face the erosion of both wages and a formerly rich institutional fabric ..."
"... When Bannon calls for Americans to understand themselves as citizens with "certain responsibilities and obligations," it's a subtle -- if incomplete and disingenuous -- recognition that the vocabulary of "liquid modernity" cannot rescue us from the very fruits it created. ..."
"... The Hayekian claim that any language of social justice commences a perilous journey towards serfdom was perhaps necessary to combat midcentury sirens of collectivism. But today it is more often representative of an age fearful of placing demanding claims upon our lives ..."
"... Someone else at TAC asked a similar question, and the answer is, no: Trump is no Gorbachev. If anything he is our Boris Yeltsin. And no, that is not intended as a compliment. MEOW , says: November 15, 2017 at 12:07 am Good points. Gorby was a realist like the Chinese. They could not depress a people's living standards with an inferior system of exchange, production, and distribution. The word was out about living standard differences. The one-world movement is very different. It means to disable all our traditions and differences (Happy Holidays for Merry Christmas – rewriting history etc) in order to allow a different cabal to prevail in this artificially created vacuum. Mac61 , says: November 15, 2017 at 6:46 am Gorbachev said we must set aside all ideology and look at all things through the light of morality. Trump is not capable of that. Bannon tried to ally Trump_vs_deep_state with Judeo-Christian morality. That project seems incomplete at the moment. Egypt Steve , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:26 am I suppose if you compare any two things, you can find some points of similarity somewhere. M1798 , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:32 am You ask for a more expansive welfare state, but didn't Make the case that our current welfare state does any public good. Food stamps and disability payments subsidize mothers to not keep the father around and fathers to not work to provide for their families. We have job training programs, yet you fail to make the case that they serve any long term good. And even our most popular welfare programs, social security and Medicare, are financially unsustainable. You wrote this article as if the GOP has legislated in the same way as their rhetoric, yet the we saw the failure to repeal Obamacare as proof that this isn't true. Dan Green , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:39 am I subscribe to what Hayek coined, the road to serfdom. Once The Social Democratic Welfare State is fully implemented , as we witness today, the state cannot make it work. Currently the model is subsidized with debt. John , says: November 15, 2017 at 10:49 am If there were an award in journalism for the hottest of takes, this might be a strong finalist for this year's. Otherwise LOL. vern , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:38 am Trump is none of the above. His only purpose in government was for his own ego gratification and to increase his wealth. He is a puppet for whoever is close enough for him to pull his strings. His favorite world leaders all happen to be autocrats who care little about civil liberties or human rights. He cares about wins and losses (ego) He is not religious, it is just a smoke screen he has put up so he can hide his worse tendencies and use it to block criticism. spite , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:57 am People that write these kind of articles just never get it (actually they probably do but cannot say these things openly). It has to do with race, whether you like this reason or not – this is the underlying fundamental issue at play here. Being replaced by another people is not going to sit well with some, one would think this is stating the obvious but it seems that the fear to broach this topic makes people come up with all kinds of reasonings that simply do not admit the truth of this. I know that anything to do with race causes so called conservatives to have abject fear (even this comment has a high chance of being censored), but you simply cannot ignore this anymore. Alex , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:59 am Oh, please. I am from the former Soviet Union. I know who Gorbachev was. He was a democrat, Trump is a dictator. Gorbachev was able to talk and listen to people, Trump is very good in insulting and blaming people. I can continue forever. They have nothing in common as human beings. connecticut farmer , says: November 15, 2017 at 12:34 pm " in which the state is again recognized as a limited but essential expression of our shared life together, where we are members not just of a market but a "great common enterprise" in which solidarity and justice are indeed tangible things." This phrase unfortunately constitutes a blemish on an otherwise fine and thoughtful article. Exactly what does the phrase "limited but essential expression of our shared life together" mean? "Limited" by what? What "great common enterprise"? What "solidarity"? Ours is a country where commonality of purpose–to the extent that it has ever existed in the first place– appears to be vanishing at an exponential level. Lots of questions. No answers. polistra , says: November 15, 2017 at 1:10 pm Obama is more like Gorbachev. The last attempt to rebrand the old system, hoping to make it more palatable. Trump may turn out to be more like Yeltsin if he starts doing SOMETHING. So far the fake image of "Trump" is causing all sorts of reactions and changes, but the actual Trump has done nothing at all. He just emits meaningless noises, handing his enemies free ammunition. ..."
TAC'
s own Rod Dreher recently
highlighted an American professor's exchange with an African diplomat, who compared Donald
Trump to Mikhail Gorbachev. Just as the last Soviet premier unwittingly became "the man who
destroyed a superpower," Trump in this view is recklessly squandering the United States' global
position. But upon reflection, the analogy holds for another reason: Whatever Trump's own
mixture of "irritable mental gestures," Trump_vs_deep_state -- as articulated by Steve Bannon, Laura
Ingraham, Michael Anton & Company -- can be read as a sort of perestroika for the
American Right.
A reader may naturally look warily at the comparison. Can one discern a link between the
rhetoric of Breitbart and Gorbachev's exhortation, "to reject obedience to any dogma, to think
independently, to submit one's thoughts and plans of action to the test of morality"? However
reaching, the comparison may allow us to discern why debates over immigration and trade now
capture the conservative imagination in a way not reducible to "white identity politics" or
reflexive loyalty to the president.
The reasoning of Gorbachev's program of perestroika -- as an attempt to both
transcend tired Soviet orthodoxies while remaining loyal to the underlying assumptions of the
regime -- also explains the attraction of Trump_vs_deep_state to many conservative intellectuals, voters,
and activists. Trump_vs_deep_state gives its followers the allure of reckoning with the conservative
movement's inadequacies while remaining faithful to its underlying assumptions about economics
and the role of the state. The appeal of nationalist rhetoric is not reducible to
nativism, though it might be for some. Instead, Bannon's program offers conservatives a safe
exit ramp from self-critical thinking, allowing them to both grapple with an erosion of work
and community among America's economic losers, while maintaining most of an existing right-wing
economic program.
In a 1987 message to the Communist Party's Central Committee, Gorbachev flaunted the Soviet
order for its "conservative inclinations, inertia, and desire to brush aside everything that
didn't fit into habitual patterns." This is the same critique offered by the Jacksonian Right
of the conservative establishment. "The whole enterprise of Conservative Inc.," wrote
Michael Anton in his famous "Flight 93 Election" essay, "reeks of failure. Its sole recent and
ongoing success is its own self-preservation."
For all its recklessness, it is this faction of Right that has indeed grappled with a
nation whose poor- and lower-middle class face the erosion of both wages and a
formerly rich institutional fabric Laura Ingraham's description of "a working class hammered by
globalization" would not seem foreign to readers of Our Kids, Hillbilly Elegy, or
Janesville . At its most tone-deaf, the Right responds with incantations to
"rekindle the rugged individualism of America's founding, frontiers, and Constitution." But
even those on the center-right with sincere empathy frequently offer only small-ball politics.
For all their merits ,
a modest increase of the Child Tax Credit, repeal of occupational licensing, vouchers for
improved geographic mobility, and moral exhortations for coastal elites to escape their bubble
do not match the gravity of the moment. In a certain way, the Bannonite call for the wall and
ripping up trade agreements is a rebellion against a purely technocratic politics without
boldness of purpose. When Bannon calls for Americans to understand themselves as citizens
with "certain responsibilities and obligations," it's a subtle -- if incomplete and
disingenuous -- recognition that the vocabulary of "liquid modernity"
cannot rescue us from the very fruits it created.
Trade and immigration are becoming the signature benchmarks for this new movement. Yet the
Jacksonian shift allows conservatives to still maintain their aversion to a strong, active
welfare state, an institution all other Western center-right parties have come to terms with.
Limiting the fluid movement of goods and people, in this view, will accomplish the same goals
as a state modeled on social or Christian-democratic purposes: We do not need to expand child
tax credits or pursue ambitious investments of retraining and vocational education. All our
struggling labor markets
demand is "stopping the importation of cheap labor." At the same time, we can press ahead
to repeal Obamacare and the tentacles of the administrative state, for economic nationalism can
ameliorate our social problems far better than any program arising out of the Washington
cesspool. Perhaps this strategy explains why, according to
Pew Research , the president maintains far more support among "Core Conservatives" than
"Country First" and "Market Skeptic" Republicans. The Trump revolution is ultimately not a
decisive schism from old-time William F. Buckley-style fusionism, no matter what both
supporters and Never Trumpers allege.
Systematic free-marketers may point out accurately how Trump_vs_deep_state can be just as economically
redistributive as any welfare program. This is all true, but to most conservative activists,
all this subtle redistribution and subsidizing looks far more hidden than paid-family leave or
public investments in early childhood or prenatal care. In other words, Trump_vs_deep_state's attraction
derives not from its wholesale rejection of traditional American conservatism, but its
potential to keep its core tenets of the right alive -- even as neoliberalism's inadequacies
suggest what is needed is a more vigorous discussion of what conservatism means in the public
sphere.
If Trump_vs_deep_state's fundamental attraction to most conservative writers and activists derives from
its ability to revise but sustain their movement, it is difficult to see how it will be to
evolve into a credible governing program. This is not because a more hawkish line on
immigration and trade is a fundamental betrayal of the "liberal world order." Indeed, one need
only read
Paul CollierGeorge BorjasMichael
Lind ,
Peter Skerry , or Dani
Rodrik to find sustained, reasonable critiques of the establishment consensus on these
matters.
But none of these authors would present their heterodox dissents as singular solutions for
restoring the American (or Western) social contract. Just as Gorbachev's ambition was not to
revitalize Russia but the Soviet Union, so is Trump_vs_deep_state not a program to save the Republic, or
even a more narrow "Middle America." Despite the Jacobin rhetoric, the Trump_vs_deep_state of Bannon,
Anton, and Ingraham is ultimately a rearguard maneuver to preserve a conservative movement
whose even devoted partisans recognize has not aged gracefully since 1989. To keep it alive,
wrecking the "globalist" consensus on immigration and trade must be pursued, regardless of the
absence of any discernible benefit for the white working class.
What would a true revolution for American conservatism look like? It should start with the
(early) thought of George Will, who wrote in the New Republic that, "if conservatism is to engage itself with the way we live now, it
must address government's graver purposes with an affirmative doctrine of the welfare state."
Conservatives must "come to terms with a social reality more complex than their slogans," where
equality of opportunity is assumed as given. The Hayekian claim that any language of social
justice commences a perilous journey towards serfdom was perhaps necessary to combat midcentury
sirens of collectivism. But today it is more often representative of an age fearful of placing
demanding claims upon our lives .
The Right must again recover the
wisdom held by Disraeli, Churchill, and the (early) domestic neoconservatives, in which the
state is again recognized as a limited but essential expression of our shared life together,
where we are members not just of a market but a "great common enterprise" in which solidarity
and justice are indeed tangible things. Accepting this truth will be a harder project than
tightening the border and combating Chinese mercantilism, worthy though such things may be. But
it will be far more revolutionary, even historic, than anything the present Trumpian revolution
offers.
David Jimenez, a recent graduate of Bowdoin College and a Fulbright Scholar in Romania,
works on campus outreach at a Washington think-tank.
Good points. Gorby was a realist like the Chinese. They could not depress a people's living
standards with an inferior system of exchange, production, and distribution. The word was out
about living standard differences. The one-world movement is very different. It means to
disable all our traditions and differences (Happy Holidays for Merry Christmas –
rewriting history etc) in order to allow a different cabal to prevail in this artificially
created vacuum.
Gorbachev said we must set aside all ideology and look at all things through the light of
morality. Trump is not capable of that. Bannon tried to ally Trump_vs_deep_state with Judeo-Christian
morality. That project seems incomplete at the moment.
You ask for a more expansive welfare state, but didn't Make the case that our current
welfare state does any public good. Food stamps and disability payments subsidize mothers to
not keep the father around and fathers to not work to provide for their families. We have job
training programs, yet you fail to make the case that they serve any long term good. And even
our most popular welfare programs, social security and Medicare, are financially
unsustainable. You wrote this article as if the GOP has legislated in the same way as their
rhetoric, yet the we saw the failure to repeal Obamacare as proof that this isn't true.
I subscribe to what Hayek coined, the road to serfdom. Once The Social Democratic Welfare
State is fully implemented , as we witness today, the state cannot make it work. Currently
the model is subsidized with debt.
Trump is none of the above. His only purpose in government was for his own ego gratification
and to increase his wealth.
He is a puppet for whoever is close enough for him to pull his strings. His favorite world
leaders all happen to be autocrats who care little about civil liberties or human rights.
He cares about wins and losses (ego) He is not religious, it is just a smoke screen he has
put up so he can hide his worse tendencies and use it to block criticism.
People that write these kind of articles just never get it (actually they probably do but
cannot say these things openly). It has to do with race, whether you like this reason or not
– this is the underlying fundamental issue at play here. Being replaced by another
people is not going to sit well with some, one would think this is stating the obvious but it
seems that the fear to broach this topic makes people come up with all kinds of reasonings
that simply do not admit the truth of this. I know that anything to do with race causes so
called conservatives to have abject fear (even this comment has a high chance of being
censored), but you simply cannot ignore this anymore.
Oh, please. I am from the former Soviet Union. I know who Gorbachev was. He was a democrat,
Trump is a dictator. Gorbachev was able to talk and listen to people, Trump is very good in
insulting and blaming people. I can continue forever. They have nothing in common as human
beings.
" in which the state is again recognized as a limited but essential expression of our shared
life together, where we are members not just of a market but a "great common enterprise" in
which solidarity and justice are indeed tangible things."
This phrase unfortunately constitutes a blemish on an otherwise fine and thoughtful
article. Exactly what does the phrase "limited but essential expression of our shared life
together" mean? "Limited" by what? What "great common enterprise"? What "solidarity"? Ours is
a country where commonality of purpose–to the extent that it has ever existed in the
first place– appears to be vanishing at an exponential level.
Obama is more like Gorbachev. The last attempt to rebrand the old system, hoping to make it
more palatable.
Trump may turn out to be more like Yeltsin if he starts doing SOMETHING. So far the fake
image of "Trump" is causing all sorts of reactions and changes, but the actual Trump has done
nothing at all. He just emits meaningless noises, handing his enemies free ammunition.
"For all its recklessness, it is this faction of Right that has indeed grappled with a nation
whose poor- and lower-middle class face the erosion of both wages and a formerly rich
institutional fabric."
But Trump might already be betraying it, as this article on banking (de)regulation
suggests. It doesn't bode will for what the tax reform bill would mean for the 80% in the
bottom quintiles of the population.
Unfortunately the entrenched social democratic welfare state will not lead to serfdom but to
a dysfunctional society. This is the lesson from independent india which has no political
party representing individualistic policies. The current Hindu nationalist party in power
caters to Hindu sentiments but a redistributive economic policy. As an outsider i see USA
following the same path with islands of functionality sustaining barely, the rest. Hopefully
the author would join in a length discussion with me on this
Dear America. Stop trying to make Russiagate happen. It's not going to happen. Deus ex
Mueller isn't coming. You're going to have to solve your country's problems yourselves,
America. He may dig up evidence of corruption, but Robert Mueller's investigation will never
– ever – find proof that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election
using hackers and propaganda. If you attribute all your problems to Trump, you're guaranteeing
more Trumps after him, because you're not addressing the disease which created him, you're just
addressing the symptom.
A while back I figured out a trick for using Twitter as a tool to find out what sorts of
things establishment loyalists really don't want me saying. Once I discover a really hot
button, I write an article that bangs on that button as hard as possible. One of those buttons is
expressing my certainty that Robert Mueller's investigation will never, ever find any proof
that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election using hackers and propaganda.
We are not allowed to say such things. If you debate a Russiagater for any length of time
and you know how to debunk their assertions, they always, always, always wind up resorting to a
"just you wait until Mueller finishes his investigation" declaration, which from my point of
view is the same as debating a fundamentalist Christian whose argument boils down to "Well I'll
be proven right when you die and God sends you to Hell!"
You can always feel right if you kick the can around some corner in the future that can't be
seen and analyzed critically. Luckily for us, we've got information that we can look at right
now which does not require any religious faith ...
Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA's Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for
Evidence https://t.co/OB33Xbb49V
We know from the Snowden leaks on the NSA, the CIA files released by WikiLeaks, and the
ongoing controversies regarding FBI surveillance that the US intelligence community has the
most expansive, most sophisticated and most intrusive surveillance network in the history of
human civilization
Following the presidential election last year, anonymous sources from within the
intelligence community were hemorrhaging leaks to the press on a regular basis that were
damaging to the incoming administration.
If there was any evidence to be found that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government
to steal the 2016 election using hackers and propaganda, the US intelligence community would
have found it and leaked it to the New York Times or the Washington Post last year.
Mueller isn't going to find anything in 2017 that these vast, sprawling networks wouldn't
have found in 2016. He's not going to find anything by "following the money" that couldn't be
found infinitely more efficaciously via Orwellian espionage. The factions within the
intelligence community that were working to sabotage the incoming administration last year
would have leaked proof of collusion if they'd had it. They did not have it then, and they do
not have it now. Mueller will continue finding evidence of corruption throughout his
investigation, since corruption is to DC insiders as water is to fish, but he will not find
evidence of collusion to win the 2016 election that will lead to Trump's impeachment. It will
not happen.
This sits on top of all the many ,
many , many
reasons to be extremely suspicious of the Russiagate narrative in the first place
Russia-gate's Shaky
Doundation - The Russia-gate hysteria now routinely includes rhetoric about the U.S. being
at "war" with nuclear-armed Russia, but the shaky factual foundation continues to show more
cracks, as historian Daniel Herman describes.
Russigate Is More Fiction Than Fact - From accusations of Trump campaign collusion to
Russian Facebook ad buys, the media has substituted hype for evidence.
The Big
Fat Compendium Of Russiagate Debunkery - Russiagate is like a mirage: from a distance it
looks like something, but once you move in for a closer look, there's nothing there. Nothing.
Nothing solid, nothing substantial, nothing you can point at and say, "Here it is."
Humans are storytelling creatures.
The most significant and most underappreciated facet of our existence is how much of our
interface with the world consists not of our direct experience of it, but of our mental stories
about it. Combine that fact with the century of
research and development that has gone into refining propaganda tactics and the US
plutocracy's stranglehold
on mainstream media , and you get a nation lost in establishment narratives. People forming
their worldviews based on phantasms of the mind instead of concrete facts.
I've noticed a strange uptick in establishment loyalists speaking to me as though
Trump-Russia collusion is already an established fact, and that I'm simply not well-informed.
There is still the same amount of publicly available evidence for this collusion as there ever
was (zero), so this tells me that the only thing which has changed is the narrative.
Pundits/propagandists are increasingly speaking as though this is something that has already
been established, and the people who consume that propaganda go out and circulate it as though
it's an established fact. When you're not plugged into
that echo chamber , though, it looks very weird.
This is why Russiagaters find my certainty that collusion will never be proven so intensely
abrasive. Their entire worldview consists of pure narrative? -- ?literally nothing other than
authoritative assertions from pundits who speak in a confident tone of voice? -- ?so when they
encounter someone doing the same thing but with hard facts, it causes psychological discomfort.
This discomfort is called cognitive dissonance. It's what being wrong feels like.
I mean, I get it. Really, I do. When I stop listening to the narratives of both his
supporters and his detractors and just look at the hard facts, from my point of view Trump is
doing some really shitty things and
doesn't seem much different from his neoliberal neocon predecessors. Republicans are
horrible, and he seems pretty much like a garden variety Republican who says rude things on
Twitter. If I look at those hard facts, then add in two years of psychological brutalization by
the corporate media telling Americans that Trump is an evil Nazi who will turn the country into
a smouldering crater, I can understand why people would be in a hurry to get him out of
office.
And when I converse with Russiagaters, that's generally what this boils down to. "Impeach
Trump" is a punishment in search of a crime. They've been whipped into a frenzied state of fear
by establishment psyops, and they want Mueller to pull a deus ex machina and save them from the
evil orange monster. They believe Mueller will get Trump impeached for Russian collusion
because they badly want to.
It's not going to happen, though. Deus ex Mueller isn't coming. You're going to have to
solve your country's problems yourselves, America.
And this is actually a good thing, because Trump is not the source of your country's
problems. Believing that a Trump impeachment will fix any of America's major ills is like
believing cough suppressants cure pneumonia. What do you get when you have pneumonia and you
take cough suppressants instead of antibiotics? You get wrong-sounding Muppets, that's
what.
It might well be that Chrystal night in KSA can be a serious blow to fouces which
want to depose President Trump. People arrested, especally prince
Bandar know way
too much. I wonder what will happen if Trump manage to get from Mohammed bin Salman
protocols of interrogation of Price Bandarr on interesting to him topics.
Notable quotes:
"... The Saudis were also shielded from Washington's foreign-policy bureaucracy. A government expert on Saudi affairs told me that Prince Bandar dealt exclusively with the men at the top, and never met with desk officers and the like. "Only a tiny handful of people inside the government are familiar with U.S.-Saudi relations," he explained. "And that is purposeful. ..."
"... Both Mueller and Comey were high enough "at the top" so as to know what the people below them needed to hide in order to succeed in their careers ..."
"... William Perry, who was the United States Secretary of Defense at the time that this bombing happened, said in an interview in June 2007 that "he now believes al-Qaida rather than Iran was behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base."[25] ..."
"... Although they'd been aware of each other for years, sharing their similar orbits, Comey and Mueller were first brought together professionally by then-FBI director Louis Freeh in the opening days of the Bush administration. As the Bush administration took office in 2001, Freeh asked Bob Mueller, who was acting as John Ashcroft's deputy attorney general, to transfer the [Khobar] case to Comey. ..."
"... So, Comey and Mueller were brought in by Freeh because Freeh was about to retire and he wanted successors who would be committed to the theory of the case, that Freeh had gotten from Prince Bandar. If Comey and Mueller wouldn't go along with that torture-extracted 'testimony' as 'evidence', then their ability to become appointed head the FBI would have been zero. Freeh, Comey, and Mueller are a team - a team that serves the Bushes and the Sauds . But not the American public. ..."
"... CLOSING NOTE: This article had been submitted to, and rejected by, the 39 publications listed here at the bottom, sent to each as an exclusive, but since they all rejected it without comment, I now am sending it not just to them but to the entire U.S. newsmedia, on a non-exclusive and free-of-charge basis to publish. ..."
It all began with the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartment complex in the Saudi city of
Khobar, which killed 19 U.S. military, who worked at the
Dharan air base
three miles away.
Both Robert Mueller and his longtime ally James
Comey (the latter of whose firing as the FBI chief, by U.S. President Trump, had sparked the
appointment of Mueller to become the Special Counsel investigating the U.S. President) performed
crucial roles in establishing that the Khobar Towers bombing had been a Hezbollah operation run by
the Iranian Government - and, starting upon this basis, in helping to develop the case that Iran
"is the foremost state
sponsor of terrorism."
However, as has been made clear by several great independent investigative journalists, on the
basis of far more-solid documentation than the official account, the Khobar Towers bombing was instead
entirely a fundamentalist-Sunni operation, specifically perpetrated by Al Qaeda, which hates Shia
and which also hates America's military presence in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden's
claim of the bombing's having been done by Al Qaeda, was, in fact, entirely honest and accurate.
America's "Deep State," which extends to Saudi Arabia and to a number of other Governments - it's
an international network - is deeply committed to supporting the fundamentalist-Sunni war to conquer
and destroy Shia Islam, and not merely to conquer the leading Shia nation, which is Iran. The U.S.
Government has intensely taken a side in the Sunni-Shia religious war. That war is comparable in
some respects to the 30
Years' War (1618-1648) between Catholics and Protestants , which killed an estimated eight million
Europeans; and, both the United States and Israel have clearly joined with the fundamentalist-Sunni
leaders, against Iran, and against Shia generally.
The reasons behind the prevailing lies about this matter will also be documented here. Discrepancies
between the official story and the solidly documented facts, need to be explained, in order for a
reader to be able to understand truthfully why Mueller (who cooperated with Comey in order to rig
the official account of the bombing, so as to condemn Iran and Hezbollah instead of Al Qaeda) received
his appointment. This is also important in order to understand why Trump, though rabidly anti-Iranian
himself, is nonetheless insufficiently anti-Iranian to satisfy the Sauds, Israel's Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, or the rest of the U.S.-and-allied Deep State.
Before proceeding further here, however, the statistical falseness of the allegation that Iran
is the foremost state-sponsor of terrorism has to be clearly recognized as being the ultimate fact
; because, if this entire question - to which Mueller and Comey contributed so importantly to answering
by their identifying Iran (and Shia generally) as being precisely that ('the foremost state sponsor
of terrorism') -- can be assessed at all objectively, then the statistical answer to it would certainly
be the objective one.
Wikipedia's article on
"Iran and state-sponsored terrorism" says: "According to the
Global Terrorism Database , the majority of deaths, more than 94% attributed to Islamic terrorism
since 2001, were perpetrated by Sunni
jihadists of the
Islamic State ,
al-Qaeda and others.
[3][4] ." Only 6% were Shiites, at all -- from any country. Similarly, my own independent
study of 54 especially prominent global instances of Islamic terrorism was headlined (and reported
that)
"All Islamic Terrorism Is Perpetrated by Fundamentalist Sunnis, Except Terrorism Against Israel."
(The anti-Israel terrorist instances might constitute the "6%" which was referred to in the Wikipedia
article, but that article provided no good link to its source for the "6%" figure.)
So: the basic allegation is false, that Iran is the foremost state-sponsor of terrorism; the general
allegation isn't anywhere near to being true. It's a lie.
More specifically, now, regarding the Khobar Towers incident, which triggered the start of this
fraudulent generalization:
The Saudi royal family asserted, immediately after the bombing, that the attack had been perpetrated
by jihadists who had returned from Afghanistan and who were now fighting to overthrow Saudi Arabia's
Government (the royal Saud family).
Then, starting in 1980,
"From the Pakistani border, bin Laden raises funds and provides the mujahedeen with logistical and
humanitarian aid." So, the Sauds' allegation that the Khobar bombers had been "veterans of the
Afghan war" would have meant that they had been foot-soldiers for the U.S.-Saudi operation in Afghanistan.
Both the U.S. Government and the Saud family (who own the Saudi Government) hate Shia and especially
hate Iran. Hezbollah are Shia, and they are extremely pro-Iran. How likely is it that Hezbollah,
anywhere, would have been fighting under the command of Al Qaeda, or of any other fundamentalist-Sunni
jihadist organization that calls all Shia "infidels"? So, the Sauds' account of the Khobar Towers
bombing is fishy, at best.
Furthermore, a Google-search for the phrase
"Hezbollah in Afghanistan" turns up only "6 results," and all of them say nothing about any "Hezbollah
in Afghanistan." No report comes up about such a thing, for any year, or any period. The only countries
where Hezbollah was reported to exist were Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. One of the links in that Google
search was globally comprehensive for the year 2007, the Center on International Cooperation's
"Annual Review of Global Peace Operations -- 2007" . It included reports on wars during that
year, in 26 countries, and the chapter for Afghanistan (pages 52-58) doesn't mention Hezbollah even
once. However, a search for the phrase "Hezbollah Afghanistan" does bring up
"Syria's Other Foreign Fighters: Iran's Afghan and Pakistani Mercenaries" , at the neoconservative
(and thus favoring not only the American aristocracy but its allied aristocracies -- especially in
Saudi Arabia and Israel) The National Interest, dated 20 November 2015. That article says, "The liwa'
fatimiyun (Fatimiyun Brigade) is composed exclusively of Afghans and fights under the auspices of
Hezbollah Afghanistan," based in Syria. Other supposed foreign Shiites trying to overthrow Syria's
Government are mentioned, as being supposedly "Pakistanis fighting in Syria under the Hezbollah flag."
However, if these allegations are true, then those men would be opponents of Syria's secular government,
which is headed by the secular Shiite Bashar al-Assad, who is being attacked by fundamentalist Sunnis
-- including both ISIS and Al Qaeda there -- who are trying to kill Hezbollah in Syria, who are,
in fact, defending Assad. (Such illogical 'historical' accounts as that, are normal in neoconservative
publications -- counterfactuality is entirely acceptable to them.) Either that, or else the alleged
Shiite Pakistanis who are fighting in Syria to overthrow the Shiite Assad and replace him with a
fundamentalist Sunni regime, would be -- not actually members of Hezbollah, but instead -- Shiites
from Pakistan who came to Syria in order to help actually not to overthrow the Government but to
defend it against its rabidly anti-Shia attackers. That's the opposite of the assumption that The
National Interest made, but it conceivably could be the case.
A Pew survey scientifically randomly sampled 1,512 Pakistanis, and found that 1,450 of them declared
themselves to be "Muslim," which is 96%. It also found that 94% of Pakistanis (of any or no faith)
say that religion is "very important" in their lives, and found that 81% of the Muslims said they
were "Sunni," 6% said they were "Shiite," and 12% said they were "Just a Muslim." So, only 6% of
Pakistanis identify themselves specifically as "Shia." That is such a small percentage of Shiites
in Pakistan, as to make unlikely any significant contribution that Pakistanis would be providing
to the defense of Syria, which is at least 1,800 miles or 2,900 kilometers, away -- not even in the
same general region. But, in any case, that neoconservative magazine's assumptions regarding the
entire matter are clearly false.
Clearly, then, the logical feasibility of the U.S. Government's case against Iran is so tiny as
to constitute almost an absolute impossibility of that case being true.
Now, then, let's consider the specifics of the case
True-blue Democrats may want to skip the next paragraphs. If President Bush put the kibosh on
investigations of Saudi funding of terror and nuclear bomb programs, this was merely taking a policy
of Bill Clinton one step further.
Following the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, Clinton hunted Osama with a passion
-- but a passion circumscribed by the desire to protect the sheikdom sitting atop our oil lifeline.
In 1994, a Saudi diplomat defected to the United States with 14,000 pages of documents from the kingdom's
sealed file cabinets. This mother lode of intelligence included evidence of plans for the assassination
of Saudi opponents living in the West and, tantalizingly, details of the $7 billion the Saudis gave
to Saddam Hussein for his nuclear program -- the first attempt to build an Islamic bomb. The Saudi
government, according to the defector, Mohammed Al Khilewi, slipped Saddam the nuclear loot during
the Reagan and Bush Sr. years when our government still thought Saddam too marvelous for words [because
he was trying to slaughter Shiite Iran]. The thought was that he would only use the bomb to vaporize
Iranians [which the rulers of both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia -- and of Israel -- would love].
Clinton granted the Saudi defector asylum, but barred the FBI from looking at the documents. Al
Khilewi's New York lawyer, Michael Wildes, told me he was stunned. Wildes handles some of America's
most security-sensitive asylum cases. "We said (to the FBI), 'Here, take the documents! Go get some
bad guys with them! We'll even pay for the photocopying!" But the agents who came to his office had
been ordered not to accept evidence of Saudi criminal activity, even on U.S. soil.
In 1997, the Canadians caught and extradited to America one of the [Saudi-Government-alleged]
Khobar Towers attackers. In 1999, Vernon Jordan's law firm stepped in and -- poof! -- the [Saudi-alleged]
killer was shipped back to Saudi Arabia before he could reveal all he knew about Al Qaeda (valuable)
and the Saudis (embarrassing). I reviewed but was not permitted to take notes on, the alleged [finally,
Palast is getting that right] terrorist's debriefing by the FBI. To my admittedly inexpert eyes,
there was enough on Al Qaeda to make him a source on terrorists worth holding on to. Not that he
was set free -- he's in one of the kingdom's dungeons [likelier dead soon after arriving back in
Saudi Arabia] -- but his info is sealed up with him. The terrorist's extradition was "Clinton's."
"Clinton's parting kiss to the Saudis," as one insider put it.
Another great investigative journalist is Seymour Hersh, who in the 22 October 2001 issue of the
New Yorker, headlined
"King's Ransom"
and he opened:
Since 1994 or earlier, the National Security Agency has been collecting electronic intercepts
of conversations between members of the Saudi Arabian royal family, which is headed by King Fahd.
The intercepts depict a regime increasingly corrupt, alienated from the country's religious rank
and file, and so weakened and frightened that it has brokered its future by channelling hundreds
of millions of dollars in what amounts to protection money to fundamentalist groups that wish to
overthrow it.
The intercepts have demonstrated to analysts that by 1996 Saudi money was supporting Osama bin
Laden's Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Yemen, and Central Asia, and
throughout the Persian Gulf region. "Ninety-six is the key year," one American intelligence official
told me. "Bin Laden hooked up to all the bad guys -- it's like the Grand Alliance -- and had a capability
for conducting large-scale operations." The Saudi regime, he said, had "gone to the dark side."
Subsequently, he noted:
In 1994, Mohammed al-Khilewi, the first secretary at the Saudi Mission to the United Nations,
defected and sought political asylum in the United States. He brought with him, according to his
New York lawyer, Michael J. Wildes, some fourteen thousand internal government documents depicting
the Saudi royal family's corruption, human-rights abuses, and financial support for terrorists.
He claimed to have evidence that the Saudis had given financial and technical support to Hamas,
the extremist Islamic group whose target is Israel. There was a meeting at the lawyer's office with
two F.B.I. agents and an Assistant United States Attorney. "We gave them a sampling of the documents
and put them on the table," Wildes told me last week. "But the agents refused to accept them." He
and his client heard nothing further from federal authorities. Al-Khilewi, who was granted asylum,
is now living under cover.
The Saudis were also shielded from Washington's foreign-policy bureaucracy. A government expert
on Saudi affairs told me that Prince Bandar dealt exclusively with the men at the top, and never
met with desk officers and the like. "Only a tiny handful of people inside the government are familiar
with U.S.-Saudi relations," he explained. "And that is purposeful."
Both Mueller and Comey were high enough "at the top" so as to know what the people below them
needed to hide in order to succeed in their careers.
The New York Times's
report , on 15 August 1996, quoted a leading Saudi dissident in London as asserting that, "As
far as I know, Prince Nayef is keeping the Americans away from all the details at this point." This
report went on: "In a statement responding to the earlier reports of confessions, Prince Nayef said
Saudi Arabia would make an announcement as soon as the investigation is completed. His comments were
also viewed as refuting earlier suggestions by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, who had said
that Saudi investigations might point to an Iranian connection." In other words, at that time (as
of August 15th), the U.S. official was suggesting "an Iranian connection" but the Saudi official
wasn't -- at least, not yet -- and the expectation was that "confessions" would be providing the
decisive 'evidence'. However, these 'confessions', in Saudi cases are typically 'information' extracted
under torture, and, where that fails to obtain the 'information' that's desired by the Government,
then threats to destroy the person's immediate family are applied; so, the Sauds famously usually
do get exactly the 'information' that they want (regardless of whether it's true).
The Wikipedia article "Khobar Towers bombing"
summarizes the 'findings' by the U.S. FBI and courts, and ignores the Sauds' 'investigation(s)',
because nothing was ever made public from the Sauds' Government or officials or anyone there, about
what they 'found' (other than 'found' by torture). Wikipedia's article, which is based entirely upon
the U.S. Government (the first party to broach publicly the possibility of "an Iranian connection")
states flatly, right up front, "Perpetrators: Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (English: Party of God in the Hijaz)."
In common parlance, that's Hezbollah, an "Iranian connection" -- exactly what the U.S. Government
wanted.
Here's what that article asserts regarding the operations of the alleged mastermind:
In June 2001, an indictment was issued in United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia charging the following people with murder, conspiracy, and other
charges related to the bombing:[18]
The Wikipedia article then continued by listing the other alleged defendants:
Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed Al-Nasser
Ali Saed Bin Ali El-Hoorie
Ibrahim Salih Mohammed Al-Yacoub
Hani al-Sayegh who had been previously in U.S. custody but deported to Saudi Arabia, when
charges against him were dropped due to a lack of evidence.
Eight other Saudis
One Lebanese man listed as "John Doe".
In July 2001, Saudi Arabia said that eleven of the people indicted in the US were in custody
in Saudi prisons, and were to be tried in Saudi court, as the country refused to extradite any
of them to the United States to stand trial.[19] The government has not since made public the
outcome of the trial or the whereabouts of the prisoners.
All six of the named persons there were Shiites in Saudi Arabia. The respective Wikipedia articles
on each provide no evidence that any of them was at all involved in the bombing. However, the
article on Hani al-Sayegh
, who was living in Canada, is extraordinarily honest: it indicates that he said he had had nothing
whatsoever to do with any bombings, nor any terrorism at all, and that the U.S. Government tried
to get him to confess to something on the basis of which he could be tried and convicted in the
U.S., but that he continued to resist all plea-offers, and to maintain that they were seeking
to get him to lie, which he would not do. So, since the U.S. would not torture him on U.S. soil,
the U.S. deported him "to Saudi Arabia on October 10, 1999 where it was assumed he would be executed
upon arrival.[3][12]." But the Saudi regime never announced anything about any of the men they
were charging in the Khobar Towers bombing.
The FBI
issued charges against al-Sayegh and 12 others (all allegedly Hezbollah) on 21 June 2001 ,
for the bombing; and, since that time, the only publication of their names has been in regards
to the mere presumption that they were guilty. Their
indictments in the U.S. (without evidence), and (since the Saudi Government wouldn't say anything
about them -- not even whether they were in prison or free there) the charge in U.S. courts that
Iran had helped them to do it, were 100% based upon that 'evidence'. Therefore, Iran was declared
guilty in U.S. courts, and fined,
again
, and
again , over $500 million in all, without any reliable evidence, at all, that Iran had anything
to do with the Khobar Towers bombing. And, not a cent of those fines was paid; but the U.S. Government's
purpose was served nonetheless: getting Iran's 'guilt' onto the official record, such that Wikipedia,
for example could say "Perpetrators: Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (English: Party of God in the Hijaz)."
The Wikipedia article on the Khobar Towers bombing closed, however, by saying:
William Perry, who was the United States Secretary of Defense at the time that this bombing
happened, said in an interview in June 2007 that "he now believes al-Qaida rather than Iran was
behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base."[25]
On December 22, 2006, federal judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Iran and Hezbollah were responsible
for the attack, stating that the leading experts on Hezbollah presented "overwhelming" evidence
of the group's involvement and that six captured Hezbollah members detailed the role of Iranian
officials in providing money, plans, and maps.[4] This decision was reached as a default judgment,
however, in which the Iranian government was not represented in court, and had no opportunity
to challenge the allegations.
People who trust the U.S. Government's honesty will interpret the outcome as displaying legal
and judicial incompetency, not as displaying political and propagandistic competency.
William Perry announced his opinion only after the 2006 court 'finding' of Iran's 'guilt' in
the case. The UPI article on this opened
and closed as follows:
Perry: U.S. eyed Iran attack after bombing
Published: June 6, 2007 at 4:25 PM
WASHINGTON, June 6 (UPI) -- A former U.S. defense secretary says he now believes al-Qaida rather
than Iran was behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base.
Former Defense Secretary William Perry said he had a contingency plan to attack Iran if the
link had been proven, but evidence was not to either his nor President Bill Clinton's satisfaction.
The attack would have struck "at a number of their military facilities that would have weakened
-- substantially weakened ... the Iranian navy and air force," he said in New York Tuesday during
a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.
"I believe that the Khobar Tower bombing was probably masterminded by Osama bin Laden," Perry
said. "I can't be sure of that, but in retrospect, that's what I believe. At the time, he was
not a suspect. At the time ... all of the evidence was pointing to Iran."
He said al-Qaida did not emerge as a major threat until Clinton's second term.
"We probably should have been more concerned about it at the time than we were but in the first
term we did not see Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as a major factor, or one that we were concerned
with," he said.
In 2001, the U.S. Justice Department announced a 46-count indictment against 13 Saudis and
one Lebanese man in the bombing. All were allegedly connected to Hezbollah, a terrorist group
the United States believes is linked to Iran.
Perry said the FBI strongly believed at the time the bombing was ordered by Iran, but Saudi
officials tried to discourage that theory.
"They feared what action we would take. They rightly feared it. In fact, I had a contingency
plan for a strike on Iran, if it had been if it had been clearly established. But it was never
clearly established, and so we never did that," Perry said.
So, although Wikipedia started by alleging "Perpetrators: Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (English: Party
of God in the Hijaz)" -- and in plain language, that's Hezbollah -- it ended by kaboshing that
very theory of the case, which the Wikipedia article had been 'documenting' (with bad logic and
some false 'facts').
Subsequently, the fine investigative journalist Gareth Porter explained how Perry had come
to think that Iran and Hezbollah had been the culprit. Perry had trusted the head of the FBI,
Louis Freeh. Perry didn't know that, behind the scenes, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud
(who was his family's U.S. Ambassador) had told Freeh that Iran and Hezbollah did it. Furthermore,
the Sauds had actually blocked the FBI's own investigators from having access to the site or to
any of the evidence (other than by providing Freeh himself access to the torture-extracted 'confessions').
Initially, in fact, the Sauds even started bulldozing the site.
The first part of Porter's five-part report was titled
"EXCLUSIVE -- PART 1: Al Qaeda Excluded from the Suspects List" . It said: "The Saudi bulldozing
stopped only after Scott Erskine, the supervisory FBI special agent for international terrorism
investigations, threatened that Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who happened to be in Saudi
Arabia when the bomb exploded, would intervene personally on the matter." It said there was: "a
systematic effort by the Saudis to obstruct any U.S. investigation of the bombing and to deceive
the United States about who was responsible for the bombing. The Saudi regime steered the FBI
investigation toward Iran and its Saudi Shi'a allies with the apparent intention of keeping U.S.
officials away from a trail of evidence that would have led to Osama bin Laden and a complex set
of ties between the regime and the Saudi terrorist organiser."
The fourth part was titled
"EXCLUSIVE -- PART 4: FBI Ignored Compelling Evidence of bin Laden Role" . It noted that,
" In October 1996, after having issued yet another fatwa calling on Muslims to drive U.S. soldiers
out of the Kingdom, bin Laden was quoted in al Quds al Arabi, the Palestinian daily published
in London, as saying, 'The crusader army was shattered when we bombed Khobar.'"
The key to the success of the Saudi deception was FBI director Louis Freeh, who took personal
charge of the FBI investigation, letting it be known within the Bureau that he was the "case officer"
for the probe, according to former FBI officials. Freeh allowed Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan to convince him that Iran was involved
in the bombing, and that President Bill Clinton, for whom he had formed a visceral dislike, "had
no interest in confronting the fact that Iran had blown up the towers," as Freeh wrote in his
memoirs.
The Khobar Towers investigation soon became Freeh's vendetta against Clinton. "Freeh was pursuing
this for his own personal agenda," says former FBI agent Jack Cloonan.
A former high-ranking FBI official recalls that Freeh "was always meeting with Bandar". And
many of the meetings were not in Freeh's office but at Bandar's 38-room home in McLean, Virginia. Meanwhile, the Saudis were refusing the most basic FBI requests for cooperation. Freeh quickly made Iranian and Saudi Shi'a responsibility for the bombing the official premise
of the investigation, excluding from the inquiry the hypothesis that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda
organisation had carried out the Khobar Towers bombing.
The CIA's bin Laden unit, which had only been established in early 1996, was also excluded
by CIA leadership from that Agency's work on the bombing.
In order to build a legal case against Iran and Shi'a Saudis, Freeh had to get access to the
Shi'a detainees who had confessed. But the Saudis never agreed to allow FBI officials to interview
them. In early November 1998, Freeh sent an FBI team to observe Saudi secret police officials
asking eight Shi'a detainees the FBI's questions from behind a one-way mirror at the Riyadh detention
center.
By then Saudi secret police had already had two and half years to coach the detainees on what
to say, under the threat of more torture. But Freeh didn't care. "For Louis, if they would let
us in the room, that was the important thing," a senior FBI official involved in the Khobar investigation
told me. "We would have gone over there and gotten the answers even if they had been propped up."
But the Justice Department refused to go ahead with an indictment based on the information
the FBI team brought back. Department lawyers knew the Shi'a detainees had been subject to torture,
so they have ruled that the confessions were not valid.
In other words: the head of the FBI believed torture-extracted 'confessions' as if such would
meet U.S. rules of evidence -- which they don't. And coaching of witnesses is likewise prohibited
-- under U.S. laws.
Although they'd been aware of each other for years, sharing their similar orbits, Comey and
Mueller were first brought together professionally by then-FBI director Louis Freeh in the opening
days of the Bush administration. As the Bush administration took office in 2001, Freeh asked Bob
Mueller, who was acting as John Ashcroft's deputy attorney general, to transfer the [Khobar] case
to Comey.
When he finally did so, Mueller called Comey with a warning: "Wilma Lewis is going to be so
pissed." Indeed, Lewis blasted the decision, as well as both Freeh and Mueller personally, in
a press release, saying the move was "ill-conceived and ill-considered." But Freeh's gambit paid
off.
Within weeks, Comey had pulled together the indictment. During a National Security Council
briefing at the White House, under the watchful gaze of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Comey presented overwhelming
evidence of Iran's involvement.
On the eve of the expiration of the statute of limitations, fourteen individuals were indicted
for the attack. Freeh, who stepped down the next day, said the indictment was "a major step."
So, Comey and Mueller were brought in by Freeh because Freeh was about to retire and he wanted
successors who would be committed to the theory of the case, that Freeh had gotten from Prince
Bandar. If Comey and Mueller wouldn't go along with that torture-extracted 'testimony' as 'evidence',
then their ability to become appointed head the FBI would have been zero. Freeh, Comey, and Mueller
are a team - a team that
serves the Bushes and the Sauds . But not the American public.
Our continuing war against Iran is due entirely to their crucial assistance. The Deep State
appoints such individuals.
* * *
CLOSING NOTE: This article had been submitted to, and rejected by, the 39 publications listed
here at the bottom, sent to each as an exclusive, but since they all rejected it without comment,
I now am sending it not just to them but to the entire U.S. newsmedia, on a non-exclusive and
free-of-charge basis to publish. Since none of them will pay me for publishing it, I shall be
happy if any publish it without charge, even small 'alternative news' sites online, because -
and especially if a mainstream newsmedium relents and decides to publish it - then perhaps the
embargo against the truth of such important matters being published in the United States and its
vassal nations, will come to be broken , and the 'news'media in America and in those other countries,
might then terminate being actually the U.S-regime's propaganda-media, and might finally begin
to pay penance for their all having helped the U.S. Government to deceive the American (and allied-nations')
public into supporting the regime's entirely lie-based invasions of Afghanistan in 2001, of Iraq
in 2003, of Libya in 2012, of Syria since 2012, of U.S. coups elsewhere (such as in
Ukraine ), and, now, potentially repeating it yet again with invasions or coups against Iran
or other countries that the U.S. elite want to grab and add to their growing U.S. empire.
If Iran becomes invaded, or another U.S. coup becomes perpetrated there (such as
in 1953 ), then
perhaps Russia's only realistic response -- as being the ultimate U.S. target -- will be a blitz
nuclear attack to destroy the United States, in recognition of the U.S. Government's fanatical
reach to control a total global empire -- total global strangulation of freedom and of peace,
everywhere. After all, if Russia waits till after a U.S. lie-based invasion of Iran, then it will
be simply waiting for a blitz nuclear attack by the U.S. and its NATO alliance against Russia
itself, which would be even worse for the world than Russia's striking first -- though the world
would end, either way. The U.S. Government now seems to be an out-of-control spreading cancer,
a terminal threat to the world in every regard. It's already recognized throughout the world as
being
"the greatest threat to peace in the world today" . And its 'news'media have helped to keep
it that way.
Here is the list of 39 publications that this article had been submitted to as an exclusive
(and, of course, it's now being submitted to them, too, yet again, but this time on a non-exclusive,
non-fee, basis, along with being submitted to all the rest of the regime's press, including broadcast
media):
McClatchy newspapers, New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, Harper's, TIME, The New
Republic, Foreign Policy, Mother Jones, The Nation, Progressive, National Review, New Yorker,
Rolling Stone, Business Week, Forbes, Politico, thedailybeast, huffingtonpost, slate, bloomberg,
businessinsider, newsweek, theintercept, breitbart, alternet, newsbud, spiked-online, vice, mintpressnews,
truthdig, truth-out, Independent, Guardian, Daily Mail, Spectator, London Review of Books, New
Statesman, Spiegel.
There is some important to note "cognitive dissonance" here: if Trump is as stupid as appears from his current policies why in
the past he was insightful enough to understand important events in proper light? Something here does not compute...
Notable quotes:
"... Trump was bright enough to build up a billion dollar business empire, to win the Republican nomination against the wishes of most the the Republican establishment, and to win the election over the Clinton/Establishment machine. ..."
"... He was bright enough to note immediately after the 9/11 false flag the absurdity of aspects of what became the official narrative; ..."
"... And his anti-NWO strong emphasis on national sovereignty, and upon taking office his immediate repudiation of the nation-state disempowering and democracy-defeating TPP, are imo evidence of combining bright and gutsy. ..."
"... And he has been bright and gutsy enough to directly take on mass media bs and to call out, as no other promenent person has, the 'fake news', the mass media propaganda system; and playfully, and rather brightly, offers his direct line to the public via twitter. ..."
"... And along with Putin, Trump has earned more mass media and establishment invective, attacks, and condemnation than just about anyone in my living memory. So he must be doing something right. ..."
"... When someone is referred to as "not the brightest bulb", this is a cliché way of denoting stupidity in someone else, but it is a often a somewhat perilous joust, suggesting a suspect self-inflation. As far as not being well informed, that of course depends on what specific matters are being referred to. It has been said that a bunch of highly intelligent people with access to all sorts of information bombed Indochina mercilessly for years; for. as the highly intelligent and overflowing with information Dr. Kissinger noted, basically nothing. ..."
"... I listened to Trump carefully during his campaign speeches. He'd deliver a long "stream of consciousness" sentence that seemed to go all over the place. But when he'd finished the sentence you realised he'd in fact covered all the points he needed to make. And had done so while at the same time picking up and factoring in the audience response. I think he may be very bright indeed and quick on his feet. ..."
"... His policies? I think we have to accept one unpalatable fact. An American politician who doesn't ostentatiously support Israel doesn't get to be an American politician, if that's not a circular way of saying it. Since that to a lesser extent is the case in England as well - you saw the trouble Corbyn got into recently - one either has to isolate oneself from political discussion or just accept that most politicians of any importance here or in the States will be defective in that respect. That sounds heartless, given what the Palestinians are going through, and given what Israel's neighbours are going through; but ceasing to strive for a little because we cannot have more is even less acceptable. ..."
"... One final point. You've seen the re-election in Germany of Mrs Merkel - no idea how since none of the people I meet in Germany would have dreamed of voting for her, but she's still there. You've seen a dead-beat government elected in the UK as well. And in France you've seen the election of Macron! In America that pattern was broken. I think it might have been a fluke - I have relatives in the States who are dyed in the wool Democrats but who just couldn't stomach the candidate they put up, and it seems there were many like them. But fluke or not they now have a President who, judging by the way they attack him, is an opponent of the type of policies that have led us to our present pass. He seems to have pretty well the entire American establishment and the media against him so he may not get that far. But surely a slim chance of getting out of the hopeless mess that is our politics in the West at present is better that the certainly of sinking further into it? ..."
Trump was bright enough to build up a billion dollar business empire, to win the Republican nomination against the wishes
of most the the Republican establishment, and to win the election over the Clinton/Establishment machine.
He was bright enough to note immediately after the 9/11 false flag the absurdity of aspects of what became the official
narrative; and for example to question the safety of the deluge of vaccines that kids especially are being subjected to,
while simultaneously there is an unprecedented 'epidemic' of autism and asthma in children.
And his anti-NWO strong emphasis on national sovereignty, and upon taking office his immediate repudiation of the nation-state
disempowering and democracy-defeating TPP, are imo evidence of combining bright and gutsy.
And he has been bright and gutsy enough to directly take on mass media bs and to call out, as no other promenent person
has, the 'fake news', the mass media propaganda system; and playfully, and rather brightly, offers his direct line to the public
via twitter.
And along with Putin, Trump has earned more mass media and establishment invective, attacks, and condemnation than just
about anyone in my living memory. So he must be doing something right.
When someone is referred to as "not the brightest bulb", this is a cliché way of denoting stupidity in someone else, but
it is a often a somewhat perilous joust, suggesting a suspect self-inflation. As far as not being well informed, that of course
depends on what specific matters are being referred to. It has been said that a bunch of highly intelligent people with access
to all sorts of information bombed Indochina mercilessly for years; for. as the highly intelligent and overflowing with information
Dr. Kissinger noted, basically nothing.
"Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies."
"b" - I listened to Trump carefully during his campaign speeches. He'd deliver a long "stream of consciousness" sentence
that seemed to go all over the place. But when he'd finished the sentence you realised he'd in fact covered all the points he
needed to make. And had done so while at the same time picking up and factoring in the audience response. I think he may be very
bright indeed and quick on his feet.
Not well informed? I can't argue with that, not after Khan Shaykhun, but the same blanket of misinformation that covers almost
all of us in Europe or the States will presumably cover New York property developers. In the echo chamber that is Washington DC
I doubt there's much chance of remedying that. I speak to responsible well-educated people regularly whose knowledge of what is
happening abroad you would condemn as pitifully inadequate. Rightfully so. Those of you who have a more accurate idea of the facts
are few, and those of us who hear you are also in a tiny minority. That's a fact of life and we can no more condemn Trump for
being ill-informed than we can the most of your and my neighbours.
I pin my hopes on the fact that he does have a good intuition and is, as I say, quick on his feet. With such a person reality
has a better chance of getting through than it would with the usual tunnel vision politician.
His policies? I think we have to accept one unpalatable fact. An American politician who doesn't ostentatiously support
Israel doesn't get to be an American politician, if that's not a circular way of saying it. Since that to a lesser extent is the
case in England as well - you saw the trouble Corbyn got into recently - one either has to isolate oneself from political discussion
or just accept that most politicians of any importance here or in the States will be defective in that respect. That sounds heartless,
given what the Palestinians are going through, and given what Israel's neighbours are going through; but ceasing to strive for
a little because we cannot have more is even less acceptable.
His other policies? You do not write on the economy on your site. The European economies, that of the UK in particular, and
the American economy, are in a bad way. Urgently so. I can therefore only put forward as a view that the solutions proposed by
Trump in 2016 offered the only chance, if a slim one, of turning that round.
One final point. You've seen the re-election in Germany of Mrs Merkel - no idea how since none of the people I meet in
Germany would have dreamed of voting for her, but she's still there. You've seen a dead-beat government elected in the UK as well.
And in France you've seen the election of Macron! In America that pattern was broken. I think it might have been a fluke - I have
relatives in the States who are dyed in the wool Democrats but who just couldn't stomach the candidate they put up, and it seems
there were many like them. But fluke or not they now have a President who, judging by the way they attack him, is an opponent
of the type of policies that have led us to our present pass. He seems to have pretty well the entire American establishment and
the media against him so he may not get that far. But surely a slim chance of getting out of the hopeless mess that is our politics
in the West at present is better that the certainly of sinking further into it?
If by chance Trump or anyone is genuine about taking down the deep state, they cannot do it by running around in a pathetic
attempt trying to fix small issues.
They would have to leave the machine to carry on as normal and go for its foundations. I thought
about this months ago, and now looking at the latest events, this could be what is happening.
When a particular MSN outlet call Intelligence assessment the work of "intelligence
community" and not a handful of analysis picked by Brannan and Clapper from just three agencies
(NSA, CIA and FBI) it ia fair to say it spreads propaganda in best Josef Gebbels tradition:
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle
is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and
over."
"Think of the press as a great keyboard on
which the government can play." ―
Joseph Goebbels
"That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails
to achieve the desired result. It is not propaganda's task to be intelligent, its task is to lead
to success."
―
Joseph Goebbels
Notable quotes:
"... CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently met -- at the urging of President Donald Trump -- with one of the principal deniers of Russian interference in the US election, according to multiple intelligence sources. ..."
"... The CIA responded to CNN's inquiry about the meeting by saying that Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 intelligence community assessment" that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election ..."
This is utterly untrue. In British court documents Mr. Steele has acknowledged he briefed
U.S. reporters about the dossier in September 2016. Those briefed included journalists from
the New York Times , the Washington Post, Yahoo News and others. Mr. Steele, by his own
admission (in an interview with Mother Jones), also gave his dossier in July 2016 to the FBI.
... ... ...
To that point, it is fair to ask if the entire Trump-Russia narrative -- which has played
a central role in our political discourse for a year, and is now resulting in a special
counsel issuing unrelated indictments -- is based on nothing more than a political smear
document. Is there any reason to believe the FBI was probing a Trump-Russia angle before the
dossier? Is there any collusion allegation that doesn't come in some form from the
dossier?
The idea that the federal government and a special counsel were mobilized -- that American
citizens were monitored and continue to be investigated -- based on a campaign-funded hit
document is extraordinary. Especially given that to this day no one has publicly produced a
single piece of evidence to support any of the dossier's substantive allegations about Trump
team members.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently met -- at the urging of President Donald Trump -- with
one of the principal deniers of Russian interference in the US election, according to
multiple intelligence sources. Trump apparently made the highly unusual request that Pompeo
meet with the former National Security Agency employee and look into a theory that the leak
of Democratic Party emails last year was an inside job rather than a cyberattack by Russian
hackers.
William Binney, the former NSA employee-turned-whistleblower who circulated the
conspiracy theory, confirmed to CNN that he met with Pompeo for about an hour on October 24
-- despite the fact the intelligence community concluded early this year that Russia
interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The meeting was first
reported by The Intercept.
The CIA responded to CNN's inquiry about the meeting by
saying that Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 intelligence community
assessment" that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
US President Donald Trump said he had "good discussions" with Russian leader Vladimir Putin
when they met briefly at an Asia-Pacific summit in Vietnam.
On Twitter, he blasted "haters and fools", who, he said, do not encourage good relations between
the countries.
Earlier he said Mr Putin told him he was insulted by allegations of Russian interference in the
2016 US election.
The US intelligence community has previously concluded that Russia tried to sway the poll in Mr
Trump's favour.
"He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election," the US president said.
However, after intense criticism, Mr Trump clarified hat he supported US intelligence agencies in
their conclusion. "As to whether or not I believe it or not, I'm with our agencies. I believe in
our... intelligence agencies," he said.
"What he believes, he believes," he added, of Mr Putin's belief that Russia did not meddle.
The two leaders had no formal bilateral talks during the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec)
event, but meet in passing on three occasions. They spoke about the Syria crisis and the election
allegations, according to Mr Trump.
"... Mark Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research. ..."
"... Before that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary ..."
"... The "Russian dossier," whose contents Trump has denied and which has been widely discredited, is believed to have led the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign and several Trump associates. ..."
"... Until now, Fusion GPS has continued to refuse to cooperate with congressional panels investigating Russian attempts to intervene in the election, and how the Obama administration probed those efforts. Democrats have also protected the company. ..."
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS to compile the "Russian dossier"
that triggered an FBI investigation into possible collusion between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government,
according to a
report Tuesday by the Washington Post .
A Republican had contracted first with Fusion GPS, and Clinton and the DNC continued to fund Fusion GPS's work, the report says.
According to the Post :
Mark Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the
research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI
and the U.S. intelligence community
Before that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October
2016, days before Election Day.
The "Russian dossier," whose contents Trump has denied and which has been widely discredited, is believed to have led the FBI
to investigate the Trump campaign and several Trump associates.
Until now, Fusion GPS has continued to refuse to cooperate with congressional panels investigating Russian attempts to intervene
in the election, and how the Obama administration probed those efforts. Democrats have also protected the company.
The revelation that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee were involved in procuring the salacious accusations
against Trump that fed their own later accusations of Russian interference in the election lends credence to those who, like Trump
himself, have regarded the Russia accusations as conspiracy theories.
Last week, Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journalobserved :
The Washington narrative is focused on special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. But the ferocious pushback and unseemly tactics
from Democrats suggest they are growing worried. Maybe the real story is that Democrats worked with an opposition-research firm
that has some alarming ties to Russia and potentially facilitated a disinformation campaign during a presidential election.
On the heels of revelations that the FBI was investigating Russian attempts to influence Hillary Clinton to approve a controversial
uranium deal, Democrats will have more questions to answer about possible collusion with Russia. The FBI, too, will face additional
scrutiny from Congress -- especially as it agreed to pay Steele after the election for additional research into Trump's potential
Russia ties.
One useful criteria to distinguish propaganda from honest analyst is to check if the
Intelligence assessment is called the product of "intelligence community" or group of handpicked
by Brennan and Clipper analysts from just three agencies (NSA, CIA, and FBI). This is very
similar to the test if some Western news out let call Magnitsky "a lawyer" or "an
accountant".
T he question why intelligence agencies used Steele dossier remain unanswered. and the answer
to this question if the key.
The forces against rapprochement with Russia are way too strong and include "foright policy
establishment", large part of Pentagon, defense contractors, intelligence agencies and their
contractors. Like any bureaucracies they want to expand much like cancel cells -- uncontrollably.
In this sense the intelligence agencies were dangerous for the US democracy from the moment of
their creation and remain so. The question that arise is " Is democracy compatible with the
existence of hypertrophied, almost out of control by "civic" government intelligence agency,
protected by secrecy of their operations? .
The main reason for their creation and existence in hypertrophied state was the existence of
the USSR. But in less twenty years from its creation CIA became dangerous for the US democracy
(in 1963 to be exact). And it probably remains dangerous now -- agency protected by secrecy and
having huge among of money in their disposal.
It is clear that the bet of intelligence agencies (at least NSA, CIA and FBI) in the last
lection was Hillary. Although it looks like FBI waved a bit. What they did to "help" her now
needs to be investigated using something like Church commission.
Notable quotes:
"... On Saturday, in his Air Force One remarks, Trump suggested that what he called the "artificial Democratic hit job" of investigations of possible collusion between his campaign and Russia were somehow preventing U.S.-Russia cooperation on a range of issues, including North Korea. "It's a shame," he said, "because people will die because of it." ..."
"... Putin, in his own news conference after speaking with Trump, said he knew "absolutely nothing" about Russian contacts with Trump campaign officials, and called reports that a campaign official met with his niece "bollocks," according to an interpreter. "They can do what they want, looking for some sensation," Putin said of the investigations. "But there are no sensations." ..."
"... On Saturday, Trump described the former top U.S. intelligence officials who concluded in January that the tampering took place -- including former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. and former CIA director John Brennan -- as "political hacks." He called former FBI director James B. Comey, who testified to Congress that Trump asked him to drop an investigation of his campaign's connections to Russian officials, a "liar" and a "leaker." ..."
"... Pompeo said last month that intelligence agencies had determined that Russian interference had not altered the electoral outcome ..."
President Trump said that President Vladimir Putin had assured him again Saturday that
Russia did not interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign, and indicated that he believed
Putin's sincerity, drawing immediate criticism from lawmakers and former intelligence officials
who assessed that the meddling took place.
"I asked him again," Trump said after what he described as several brief, informal chats
with Putin in Danang, Vietnam, where they were attending a regional conference. "You can only
ask so many times . . . He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. He
did not do what they are saying he did.
"I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it . . . I think he's
very insulted, if you want to know the truth," Trump told reporters traveling with him aboard
Air Force One from Danang to Hanoi, on the ninth day of a long Asia tour. Trump voiced similar
conclusions after his only previous meeting with Putin, last July in Germany.
Trump's response to questions about his conversations with Putin was a jarring return
to the more insular preoccupations of Washington after more than a week of what has been a trip
filled with pageantry and pledges of mutual admiration, but few substantive outcomes, between
Trump and Asian leaders.
Later, in a news conference Sunday in Hanoi with Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang, Trump
appeared to be trying to parse his earlier remarks, saying, "What I said is that I believe
[Putin] believes that.
"As to whether I believe it or not," he said, "I'm with our [intelligence] agencies,
especially as currently constituted.
"I want to be able . . . to get along with Russia," Trump said. "I'm not
looking to stand and argue with somebody when there are reporters standing all around."
Reporters were not permitted inside the hall where the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
conference was held in Danang.
... ... ...
On Saturday, in his Air Force One remarks, Trump suggested that what he called the
"artificial Democratic hit job" of investigations of possible collusion between his campaign
and Russia were somehow preventing U.S.-Russia cooperation on a range of issues, including
North Korea. "It's a shame," he said, "because people will die because of it."
Putin, in his own news conference after speaking with Trump, said he knew "absolutely
nothing" about Russian contacts with Trump campaign officials, and called reports that a
campaign official met with his niece "bollocks," according to an interpreter. "They can do what
they want, looking for some sensation," Putin said of the investigations. "But there are no
sensations."
On Saturday, Trump described the former top U.S. intelligence officials who concluded in
January that the tampering took place -- including former director of national intelligence
James R. Clapper Jr. and former CIA director John Brennan -- as "political hacks." He called
former FBI director James B. Comey, who testified to Congress that Trump asked him to drop an
investigation of his campaign's connections to Russian officials, a "liar" and a
"leaker."
Clapper said in a statement that "the president was given clear and indisputable evidence
that Russia interfered in the election. His own DNI and CIA director have confirmed the finding
in the intelligence community assessment. The fact that he would take Putin at his word over
the intelligence community is unconscionable."
Brennan declined to comment.
In a statement, the CIA said that Director Mike Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by
the January 2017 Intelligence Community assessment . . . with regard to Russian
election meddling." That position, it said, "has not changed." The assessment also concluded
that Russia had acted to promote Trump's victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Although
Pompeo said last month that intelligence agencies had determined that Russian interference
had not altered the electoral outcome , the assessment did not address that question.
Does this means that Trump now believes that this was Brenna's false flag operation? And why intelligence
agencies exploited Steele dossier against him?
Notable quotes:
"... "I mean, give me a break," Trump said. "So you look at it, I mean, you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he is proven now to be a leaker." ..."
The president disparaged officials who worked for Barack Obama, saying former CIA chief John Brennan,
ex-director of national intelligence James Clapper and James Comey,
the FBI director he fired in May , were "political hacks".
"I mean, give me a break," Trump said. "So you look at it, I mean, you have Brennan, you have
Clapper and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he is proven now to be a leaker."
He suggested he put more faith in Putin's word.
"Every time he sees me he says 'I didn't do that' and I really believe that when he tells me that,"
Trump said. "He really seems to be insulted by it and he says he didn't do it. He is very, very strong
in the fact that he didn't do it. You have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he has
nothing to do with that."
"... as Russiagate widens, it's becoming clear that some part of the US intelligence community and part of the US financial elite were involved in the manipulation of the 2016 election. ..."
"... The spooks have been trying (and failing!) for years to break up the EU ..."
"... As for the gangsters, nobody could compete with the thug (felon) Avigdor Lieberman in the Knesset and the neo-Nazi activists in Kevan government. Don't forget that Mr. Kolomojsky, an Israeli citizen and big-time criminal and financier of the neo-Nazi battalion Azov, is also a pillar of Jewish Community in Ukraine (and a darling of the Wall Street Journal) and that Mr. D. Alperovitch, the Russophobe who conducted the fraudulent analysis of the data with his fraudulent CrowdStrike, is from a ziocon company of Atlantic Council. The Tokyo Rose has been, of course, documented in a company of neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Oh? And what evidence would that be? The CrowdStrike report? The Steele dossier? James Comey's say-so? Or perhaps that of some other DNC contractor or Obama administration flunkee? Do come back and enlighten us when they find some real evidence–i.e., something that might actually stand an outside chance of winning a conviction in court. ..."
"... Precisely. Thanks for highlighting this succinct explanation. Those who point to intel agencies or career bureaucrats as Deep State are identifying the puppets, not the masters. Kudos to Whitney for getting it right. ..."
Michael Kenny, November 11, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT • 300 Words
Russiagate still scaring the daylights out of some people! The distinction between
"Hillary paid for it" and "Hillary fabricated it" has already been made umpteen times. The
reason, I think, why this author is trying to tie Hillary to the intelligence agencies and
the millionaires is because, as Russiagate widens, it's becoming clear that some part of
the US intelligence community and part of the US financial elite were involved in the
manipulation of the 2016 election.
A part of the US financial elite have invested heavily (and for the most part, legally) in
Russia but have thereby done business with some very dubious characters, some probably linked
to the Russian Mafia. Having installed their stooge in the Kremlin, the gangsters took the
logical next step and tried to install a stooge in the White House. The US elite was happy to
let the Russians have a slice of the cake but by manipulating the election, the gangsters
were in practice making a grab for the whole cake. The US elite wasn't willing to accept
that. Hence the current fight.
The spooks have been trying (and failing!) for years to break up the EU and what
both the US elite and the Russian gangsters had in mind was to carve up Europe between them
("spheres of influence"). The two projects came together in Ukraine. In other words, all of
this has very little to do with politics or international relations and a great deal to do
with dirty money.
Trying to pin that on Hillary is a rather flat-footed attempt to divert
attention away from the links between the Russian gangsters, the spooks and the Trump's
entourage.
"Trying to pin that on Hillary is a rather flat-footed attempt to divert attention away
from the links between the Russian gangsters, the spooks and the Trump's entourage."
We understand your frustration with the events in Syria. The ziocons' vicious hatred
towards Russians for the "loss" of Syria to the Syrian citizens (instead the
US/Israel/SA-sponsored ISIS) is evident.
As for the gangsters, nobody could compete with the thug (felon) Avigdor Lieberman in the
Knesset and the neo-Nazi activists in Kevan government. Don't forget that Mr. Kolomojsky, an
Israeli citizen and big-time criminal and financier of the neo-Nazi battalion Azov, is also a
pillar of Jewish Community in Ukraine (and a darling of the Wall Street Journal) and that Mr.
D. Alperovitch, the Russophobe who conducted the fraudulent analysis of the data with his
fraudulent CrowdStrike, is from a ziocon company of Atlantic Council. The Tokyo Rose has
been, of course, documented in a company of neo-Nazis.
Mike Whitney' paper has a hall mark of a courageous and principled person, whereas your
Russophobic insinuations have been Russophobic insinuations and nothing more.
Yeah, yeah. Poor, prosecuted Hillary is just a victim. Like all the rest of the poor,
prosecuted leftist sore losers. Or rather, losers, sore or otherwise.
Hillary has a long, long career playing in the sandbox with Murder Inc, Political
Division.
Of course, she will take the fall for failure. Mobsters whack other mobsters quite
frequently if they "fail"or are disloyal. And of course, glory-seekers like Hillary set themselves up for complete humiliation, at
minimum, when things don't go so well.
And yet and yet there is evidence that the Trump campaign was in contact with various
Russians all during the campaign.
Oh? And what evidence would that be? The CrowdStrike report? The Steele dossier? James
Comey's say-so? Or perhaps that of some other DNC contractor or Obama administration flunkee?
Do come back and enlighten us when they find some real evidence–i.e., something
that might actually stand an outside chance of winning a conviction in court.
And they too were looking for "dirt" -on Clinton.
Well that isn't too hard to find, is it! No need to go to the black market for that.
The question now is: to what extent was the Trump campaign conspiring with Russia to
subvert our election process? If they were involved in such a conspiracy, then the Trump
organization has violated Federal laws and should be held to account, each and every one
who so conspired.
Opposition research is not a crime. Nor is talking about US politics with foreign
nationals; if it were, I'd be guilty of treason on a weekly basis, since I now live in
Europe.
Although you may not like the source of the information nor its underlying purposes, if
it exposes criminal actions by anyone than it served a good cause.
This is hilarious! I can remember using almost exactly those same words with
Hillbots every time one of her corrupt schemes came to light. For example, isn't interceding
with the Attorney General on your wife's behalf to head off an investigation in to her before
an election a crime known as 'obstruction of justice'? Riddle me that, Batman.
Precisely. Thanks for highlighting this succinct explanation. Those who point to intel
agencies or career bureaucrats as Deep State are identifying the puppets, not the masters.
Kudos to Whitney for getting it right.
This is from July, 2017, before the most recent revelations...
Notable quotes:
"... Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo ..."
"... the weapons and ammunition are usual from east Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine ...) ..."
"... the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well as with Saudi and Israeli companies ..."
"... offloading during unusual "fueling stops" allowed to disguise the real addressee of the loads ..."
"... With lots of details from obtained emails. Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also came first from Libya by ship, then on at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years by various ships under U.S. contracts from mostly east-European countries. ..."
"... A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel... ..."
"... there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier. ..."
"... there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media. ..."
"... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6 and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort to dump Trump. ..."
"... Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin years of the 90s. ..."
"... Is RussiaGate Really IC-Gate Did MI6/CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump? ..."
Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic
cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo
the weapons and ammunition are usual from east Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine
...)
the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well
as with Saudi and Israeli companies
offloading during unusual "fueling stops" allowed to disguise the real addressee of the
loads
With lots of details from obtained emails. Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also
came first from Libya by ship, then on
at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years
by
various
ships under U.S. contracts from
mostly east-European
countries.
---
With all the Trump-Russia nonsense flowing around one person's involvement in the creation of
the issue deserves more scrutiny:
McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier. The third time is the Charm. I am reminded. McCain can do no wrong:
His service to his country (it's alleged, by aiding the enemy);
The Keating Five; (I dindu nuttin wrong)
The Trump-Russia Dossier (by political treason stabbing the nominee of his own Party; ignoring
the words of Reagan). McCain, once again, will be excused and forgiven. His actions were due to illness – the most
aggressive cancer of the brain. How is that so?
Thanks b, the mountain of evidence you provide daily, as proof of the corporate empire's malignancy,
is therapeutic and empowering, but, until this information reaches the bulk of the U$A's masses
we're all just treading water here.
@2: The last thing McCain has to worry about is prosecution or even criticism for fomenting war
crimes. The cancer is real and he will be lauded for his courage and lionized if he dies. But
should he survive he will carry on as usual with no apologies and no criticism.
Sorry b .... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two
weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6
and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot
by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort
to dump Trump.
A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The
connection between them is starting to unravel...
there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the
infamous Steele dossier.
there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media.
the issue is now in front of a British court.
Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin
years of the 90s.
Is RussiaGate Really IC-Gate Did MI6/CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump?
'Sir' Andrew Wood as spy chief in Moscow
Fusion GPS linked to UAE Sheikh and Rubio Donor
Peter W. Smith Tapped Alt-Right to Access Dark Net for Clinton emails – linked to Charles
C. Johnson – Stephen Bannon - Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the alias 'Weev', "exiled"
to the Ukraine
Thanks, b. Love the lede... 350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for ter'rists - Trud
What a slimy little cur John McCain (Satan's Mini-Me) turns out to be. Guess how surprised
I'm not that the little skunk is up to his eyeballs in weapons proliferation & profiteering, not
to mention that old Yankee favourite Gun-barrel "Diplomacy".
I suspected during the Prez Campaign that Trump had McCain well and truly scoped when he said
(of Satan's Mini-Me) "I like my war "heroes" not to get captured."
This story says a lot for China & Russia's approach to long-term Strategic Diplomacy. I imagine
that they both know all this stuff and a helluva lot more, but they go to all the summits, prattle
about Our AmeriKKKan Friends, and then presumably laugh their asses off when the summit is over.
Xi & Putin seem to truly believe that the blowback from all this Yankee Duplicity will eventually
do as much harm to the American Dream as an Ru/Cn Military Solution.
@james 8
[Reported by Independent.co.uk, New York Post and the Guardian.co.uk] McCain admitted he handed
the dossier to Comey."
NYPost: McCain "I gave Russia blackmail dossier on Trump to the FBI"
Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging
secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally
compromising material on the president-elect himself
Yes, there will be no accountability in the U.S. for the exceptional ones. However, the British
courts setting aside "special relationships" may take a different view that McCain has a case
to answer.
Craven McCain has been teflon for his entire political career and he was teflon when he wrecked
airplanes in the navy. McCain is just a teflon guy. Untouchable. Probably has "dossiers" on anybody
that can damage him.
@2 I have no doubt that McCain's medical condition is real. I well remember the news stories in
early June when McCain put up a bizarre performance during testimony by James Comey - asking questions
that simply didn't make any sense whatsoever and leaving everyone utterly gob-smacked regarding
McCain's mental state.
Possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans
and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats. If
for a moment one could remove the often justified hatred many people feel toward Trump, it would be
impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been devised by the DNC and the Clinton
camp in league with Obama's intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims. In other
words this is a sophisticated false flag operation.
Even more alarmingly (what really smells like a part on intelligence agencies coup d'état against
Trump ) is the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts
from three U.S. intelligence agencies - the CIA, the FBI and the NSA - not all 17 agencies that Hillary
Clinton continues to insist were involved. (Obama's intelligence chiefs, DNI Clapper and CIA Director
John Brennan, publicly admitted that only three agencies took part and The New York Times printed a
correction saving so.)
Notable quotes:
"... Well its three . And one is Brennan . And one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They're political hacks . So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey . Comey's proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So you look at that. ..."
"... Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of "Russian hacking": Podesta and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack, the NYT's long false insistence on the '17 agencies' assessment, the "political hacks" who fitted their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative. ..."
"... But neither the Washington Post nor the NY Times or others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is no word on the DNC servers in them. Instead they create a claim of "Putin says and Trump just believes him". The do not name the facts and questions Trump listed to support his position. Taking up the valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them. We can't have that. ..."
"... Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies. But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else. ..."
"... I guess it could be that the DNC really was hacked, but maybe they faked the hack story, fed the story to Crowdstrike, then paid Crowdstrike a lot of money to fabricate a fairytale about Russian hacking... ..."
"... This Russian fairytale would be the bedrock of Hillary's campaign, and it gave her a reason to badmouth trump who intended to get along with Putin, which deeply offended the neocon Bolsheviks who've been running things since 9/11 ..."
"... If the hacking really happened, it's maybe more likely to have been the US NSA that did the hacking... that might explain why the DNC and Hillary were not alarmed by the hacking --if it happened-- and did nothing about it, and continued to write incriminating emails... ..."
"... Russia gate is Really Hillary Gate... And that's just the beginning as we consider the DNC lid coming off via Donna Brazile and the Uranium scandal. Mueller has been gatekeeper for the Deep State for OKC bombing, 911,...other False Flag...and now today's Intrigues. ..."
"... Back when Trump looked like he was in the running in the US presidential election, I wondered how one man, even if he was genuine, could without the backing of US intelligence, take down the deepstate/borg/whatever. Putin pulled Russia out of the nineties with key backing from patriotic intelligence and military leadership, but Trump even if genuine would be on his own. Just ordered 'Art of the deal' to try and understand Trump a bit more. Looks like he has just destroyed a big chunk of deep state financing so will be interesting to see how long he can stay alive. ..."
"... well, Mueller declined to find 9/11 evidence against bin laden... or maybe we should say, "he declined to manufacture evidence"... for some unkown reason... ..."
"... Can we just face the facts here that there is a coordinated effort by these elite to get Trump dethroned? What reason for this? Simple...he's a threat. ..."
"... Mike Whitney posted a great piece this week suggesting Brennan, Obama's political 'hack', is behind this mess - "Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the public?" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48172.htm ..."
"... These are but a few sources digging and reporting on these bogus charges against Putin. I'd like to believe the majority of the U.S. electorate isn't being fooled by the nonsense. I can't speak for those who choose to remain inside the brainwashing corporate media bubble, but for those of us who divorced ourselves from their propaganda long ago ain't buying nor ever did buy into the muh Russia crap. ..."
"... Meanwhile, USG declares RT and Sputnik to be foreign agents and must register as such -- and Trump had nothing to do with that?!? ..."
"... The media is now now in permanent psy op mode, colonizing the public's mind and jamming people's ability to reason, think critically and even tell fact from fiction. It is only a matter of time before overt repression becomes widespread (to protect our freedoms of course) and the last remnants of democracy give way to an Orwellian/Huxleyite dystopia. ..."
"... CNN covers the Binney/Pompeo meeting, and describes Binney in the headline as a "conspiracy theorist": http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/mike-pompeo-william-binney-meeting/index.html ..."
Trump Points To Falsehoods In "Russian Hacking" Claims - Media Still Ignore Them
During the flight of his recent Asia tour U.S. President Donal Trump held a press gaggle on board
of the plane. Part of it were questions and answers about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S.
election.
There is no public transcript available yet but the Washington Post's Mark Berman
provided a screenshot
of some relevant parts:
Mark Berman @markberman - 6:20 AM - 11 Nov 2017
Full comment from @realDonaldTrump again questioning the US intel community conclusion that
Russia meddled last year
In the attached transcript Trump talks about his very short encounter with the Russian President
Putin in Hanoi:
Q: When did you bring up the issue of election meddling? Did you ask him a question?
A: Every time he sees me he says he didn't do that and I really believe that when he tells
me that, he means it. But he says, I didn't do that. I think he is very insulted by it, ...
...
He says that very strongly and he really seems to be insulted by it he says he didn't do it.
Q: Even if he didn't bring it up one-on-one, do you believe him?
A: I think that he is very, very strong on the fact that didn't do it. And then you look and
you look what's going on with Podesta , and you look at what's going on with the server from the
DNC and why didn't the FBI take it ? Why did they leave it? Why did a third party look at the
server and not the FBI ? You look at all of this stuff, and you say, what's going on here? And
you hear it's 17 agencies. Well its three . And one is Brennan . And one is whatever. I mean,
give me a break. They're political hacks . So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have
Clapper and you have Comey . Comey's proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So
you look at that. And you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently say he has nothing
to do with that. Now, you are not going to get into an argument, you are going to start talking
about Syria and the Ukraine.
Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of "Russian hacking": Podesta
and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack,
the NYT's long false insistence on the '17 agencies' assessment, the "political hacks" who fitted
their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative.
But
neither the Washington Post
nor the NY Times or
others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is
no word on the DNC servers in them. Instead they create a claim of "Putin says and Trump just believes
him". The do not name the facts and questions Trump listed to support his position. Taking up the
valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them.
We can't have that.
Instead we get more "Russian influence" claptrap. Like this from the once honorable Wired
which headlines:
Russian interference in Brexit through targeted social media propaganda can be revealed for the
first time. A cache of posts from 2016, seen by WIRED, shows how a coordinated network of Russian-based
Twitter accounts spread racial hatred in an attempt to disrupt politics in the UK and Europe.
Interesting, enthralling, complicate and sensational ...
... until you get down to paragraph 14(!):
Surprisingly, all the posts around Brexit in this small snapshot were posted after the June vote
"Russian agents" influenced the U.S. election by buying mostly
irrelevant Facebook ads - 25% of which were never seen by anyone and 56% of which were posted
AFTER the election
"Russian-based Twitter accounts" influenced the Brexit vote in the UK by tweeting affirmative
AFTER the vote happened
Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies.
But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by
lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with
Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else.
"Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies.
But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political
hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran
and probably everyone else."
I couldn't agree more B. The distraction to cover up the DNC crimes and the 'pay to play' antics
during HRC's tenure at SECState are part of this nonsense as well.
the term "hacked" implies that someone came in on the internet, right?
I guess it could be that the DNC really was hacked, but maybe they faked the hack story,
fed the story to Crowdstrike, then paid Crowdstrike a lot of money to fabricate a fairytale about
Russian hacking...
This Russian fairytale would be the bedrock of Hillary's campaign, and it gave her a reason
to badmouth trump who intended to get along with Putin, which deeply offended the neocon Bolsheviks
who've been running things since 9/11
If the hacking really happened, it's maybe more likely to have been the US NSA that did
the hacking... that might explain why the DNC and Hillary were not alarmed by the hacking --if
it happened-- and did nothing about it, and continued to write incriminating emails...
...they assumed the hackers were on their side
OK, then, if the hacking was a fairytale, made up by Debbie and Hillary, and reinforced by
Crowdstrike, then what? Maybe it doesn't make any difference in the long run, if the DNC was hacked
or not
Whatever happened, the emails got out, Assange strongly hints that Seth Rich was the leak,
Seth Rich was murdered, and his murder was intended to be a warning to people like Donna Brazile,
who, after Seth was murdered, started drawing her office blinds because she didn't want to be
sniped... presumably by the people who murdered Seth Rich
Russia gate is Really Hillary Gate... And that's just the beginning as we consider the DNC
lid coming off via Donna Brazile and the Uranium scandal. Mueller has been gatekeeper for
the Deep State for OKC bombing, 911,...other False Flag...and now today's Intrigues.
Will
Podesta and Hillary escape?...or get Prison? John McCain with ISIS and photo opp,.. Evil in your
face 24. If certain people are not in Prison....Mueller could wear the label Satan's guardian.
..and it wouldn't be exaggeration
Back when Trump looked like he was in the running in the US presidential election, I wondered
how one man, even if he was genuine, could without the backing of US intelligence, take down the
deepstate/borg/whatever. Putin pulled Russia out of the nineties with key backing from patriotic
intelligence and military leadership, but Trump even if genuine would be on his own. Just ordered
'Art of the deal' to try and understand Trump a bit more. Looks like he has just destroyed a big
chunk of deep state financing so will be interesting to see how long he can stay alive.
well, Mueller declined to find 9/11 evidence against bin laden... or maybe we should say,
"he declined to manufacture evidence"... for some unkown reason...
whatever, if seth rich's murder was an attempt to terrorize politicians and the media into
parroting the party line --like the anthrax letters did after 9/11-- it worked
b, it is so funny that everytime you allude to Trump being in the right against the teeming hordes
or globalist, anti-Russia elites, you always offer the caveat: "but...he's a bastard and I hate
him."
Can we just face the facts here that there is a coordinated effort by these elite to get
Trump dethroned? What reason for this? Simple...he's a threat.
Enemy of my enemy anyone?
P.s. I view him as an opportunist. a chameleon. At the very least, perhaps he realizes the
absolute absurdity of trying to keep the house of cards aloft in the ME. So far, no wars, and
a de-escalation in Syria. Pundits are talking about 3+% growth in US for first time in decade.
I dont't know...perhaps Donald can cut and run in time to salvage some of the US prosperity.
I'm almost inclined to think Trump is letting this Russian hack thing play out on purpose despite
his Tweets to the contrary. Preventing the feds from 'investigating' it wouldn't make it go away,
it would just cement the notion of guilt and a cover-up into the anti-Trump, anti-Russian segment
of the public. More importantly, the similarly-inclined political/government leaders (pro-Hillary,
DNC, politicized FBI and intel, neocons, deep state, whatever...) and MSM slowly expose themselves
for what they are. They get too confident in the big lie actually working and go into a feeding
frenzy. Trump trolls them on Twitter and they go insane.
When you want to catch sharks, you don't chase them around the ocean to hunt them. You
chum the waters and wait
for them to come to you. Trump isn't the one chumming the waters here - he's letting the sharks
do that themselves.
I scratched my head like everyone else trying to figure out Trump's earlier incomprehensible
hiring/firing volley his first few months. Maybe that was just a bit of theatre. Trump might not
understand the 'little people' too much, but he does understand his opponent psychopaths (corporate,
banking or government/intel) and how to use their basic flaws against them. 'Draining the swamp'
sells well, but letting his opponents stick their necks out far enough before Trump's own Night
of the Long Knives would (to me) be a far more effective strategy towards his ends. And probably
much safer for him than Kennedy's approach.
Kind of worrying that one has to rely on outsider psychopaths to cull other psychopath's well-entrenched
herds within the US government. Does that ever turn out well?
Only the most strident partisans hold tightly to the Russian interference nonsense.
Those who simply want to deal in facts bother ourselves to self inform using multiple sources
who have been trying to make sense of the dastardly twists and turns in this muh Russia whodunit
scandal. The DNC emails, dossier, collusion the whole escapade, from the beginning, could be seen
as being built on nothing more than quicksand.
Mike Whitney posted a great piece this week suggesting Brennan, Obama's political 'hack',
is behind this mess - "Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early
as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing
his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered
no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded
Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants
at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the
public?" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48172.htm
And then you have the Intercept's piece on Binney's meeting with CIA's Pompeo with Ray McGovern
providing a lot more detail and an interview with his favorite news outlet RT -
http://raymcgovern.com/
Oh, and about Binney's meeting with Pompeo? Trump requested Pompeo meet with him. He did. But
Pompeo, as of today, remains steadfast in supporting the ICA crap report Obama's political intel
hacks put out.
These are but a few sources digging and reporting on these bogus charges against Putin.
I'd like to believe the majority of the U.S. electorate isn't being fooled by the nonsense. I
can't speak for those who choose to remain inside the brainwashing corporate media bubble, but
for those of us who divorced ourselves from their propaganda long ago ain't buying nor ever did
buy into the muh Russia crap.
we got to wonder why donna brazile made such a fuss about Seth Rich. She's being way too cagey
for comfort but even if we leave seth rich out of it, none of it make any sense
Also from a Youtube video I saw earlier there are claims this is what is happening.
1. Obama regime was chronically corrupt including sell of Uranium to Russia for bribes. Elements
of the US military and intelligence were disgusted by this and approached Trump BEFORE the elections
as a figure who could help them.
2. Trump decided to work with them and during his election campaign he deliberately made constant
exaggerated claims of his supposed friendship with Putin, this was bait for the Democrats to smear
him as a Putin-lover, Putin puppet.
3. Once elected, the whole "Trump is a Putin puppet" was allowed to run so that a huge demand
for some sort of investigation in to Trump and his Russia links could be built. Only this investigation
would in fact be used to target the Democrats and Clinton including for their corruption over
the Uranium sales with the Russians.
4. This was apparently (according to these claims) the game plan from the beginning and Mueller
is apparently going to work to convict Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats.
I don't know how true this is, but it does answer a lot of questions and anomalies and also
ties in with B's thesis that we are essentially seeing a quasi-military government in D.C. under
Trump.
@ PavewayIV who ended his comment with: "Kind of worrying that one has to rely on outsider psychopaths
to cull other psychopath's well-entrenched herds within the US government. Does that ever turn
out well? "
Yep! And we add our textual white noise to the rearranging of the deck chairs on
the top deck of the good ship Humanity as it careens over the falls/into the shoals/pick-your-metaphor
psychohistorian@14 - Captain to crew: "I will not have this ship go down looking
like a garbage scow. Deck chairs will be arranged in a neat and orderly manner at all times!"
The same media you're decrying here is also ignoring this week's paradise papers revelations
about Wilbur Ross, Trump's commerce secretary and business links with Russian Israeli mobsters
and oligarchs like Mogilevich.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMhzkvWuXEM
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true. The other is to refuse
to believe what is true. Can't fix stupid sociopathy. I pity deplorable goyims, They deserve their
plight...
Please someone end this idiot circus! Russia hacked THE ELECTION ...hacked THE ELECTION ??? For
the love of gawd..the ELECTION, meaning the voting was hacked.....it was NOT. Nothing has focused
on Russian 'hacking' of VOTES. Russia 'if' they hacked, at best hacked some emails and info used
to expose Hillary. And posted negative info on the net. So, so what? How many leakers weren't
doing that?
I have had it with the Dems, they have IQs somewhere below that of cabbages. But
I guess there are a certain number of citizens that will believe anything if it is repeated enough
by their herd leaders.
All this pathetic, lousy street theater resembling staging can only serve one important reason:
Distraction. What is it that people need to be distracted from? That the US has turned openly
into a military dictatorship? That the extermination proceedings are speeding up?
Hitler used
gas chambers, as did the US after the war. While the first was a psychopathic dictator, the latter
is a psychopathic society. It has spend trillions in research and design of lethal weapons and
systems to exterminate any 'enemy'.
With all the technological progress, people do no longer need to be dragged to a gas chamber.
The gas chamber will come to them. Sprayed into the atmosphere and making its way into earth's
life systems.
Trump, Dump, Busch, Koch, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon - plutocratic hand puppets. It is not the
people who decide where and when the ship sinks. It will be sunken for them - with all the useless
eaters on board.
Trump is too stupid to realize that the very reason the election was rigged in his favour was
- the derailment of ANY ZIO/US/Russia relations !! Their top priority ( as always) has been to
keep Russia and Germany apart ! Russia's 'resources' and German 'innovation' is a match made in
heaven - would spell the end of the US economy !
Not only did the Propaganda System refuse to correctly report as b details, but nowhere has it
mentioned the defeat of Daesh, as Pepe Escobar discloses: "This is History in the making.
"And right on cue, VIRTUALLY NOTHING about this REAL ON THE GROUND VICTORY OF
A REAL WAR ON TERROR is being covered by Western corporate media.
"No wonder. Because this was the work of Damascus, Russia, Hezbollah, Iran advisers, Baghdad
and the PMUs – actually the "4+1" - and not the US-led "coalition" that includes Wahhabi mongrels
House of Saud and UAE - that totally smashes to bits the monochord Washington narrative.
The war on Syria and the Russian "hacking" debacle has corrupted the entire western media. Not
that it was ever squeaky clean - far from it - but it was at least somewhat independent from the
dominant establishment. There were pauses between the outrageous lies and blatant fact twisting
and it did not overtly shill for neoliberal political parties and work overtime pushing massive
amounts of propaganda on the public 24/7/365 and relentlessly demonize, in the most crude fashion
imaginable, the leaders of some of the the world's most powerful countries and any sovereign nation
that values its independence and freedom from Western exploitation.
The media is now now in permanent psy op mode, colonizing the public's mind and jamming
people's ability to reason, think critically and even tell fact from fiction. It is only a matter
of time before overt repression becomes widespread (to protect our freedoms of course) and the
last remnants of democracy give way to an Orwellian/Huxleyite dystopia.
If by chance Trump or anyone is genuine about taking down the deep state, they cannot do it
by running around in a pathetic attempt trying to fix small issues. They would have to leave the
machine to carry on as normal and go for its foundations. I thought about this months ago, and
now looking at the latest events, this could be what is happening.
Meanwhile a revolution threatening the federation of Australia is taking place in Canberra utilizing
a formless and compliant press corps and a fake issue of dual citizenship. Chaos is a disease
agent which has jumped out of the Middle Eastern laboratory into all western nations.
Charge in corruption is a standard instrument in regime change effort. Most widely used in in
color revolutions. So this is a pretty old way tested in xUSSR republics.
Everybody is against corruption, so it has become the new cool way to concentrate power in
dictatorial societies to engage in an anti-corruption drive, as Putin and Xi Jinping have done.
Actually corrupt people may well be arrested, but somehow included in the set of those arrested
are rivals of the leader who are conveniently disposed of.
likbez , November 10, 2017 8:53 pm
Barkley,
You should probably think in a wider framework of color revolution, not in the narrow
framework of (possibly inflated) corruption charges. This is about de-legitimization, not
about the corruption per se.
BTW the charge in corruption is a standard tool used in color revolutions. So it is far
from only "the new cool way to concentrate power in dictatorial societies". It is more of an
old way to induce "regime change".
It is perfectly applicable to political struggle in neoliberal societies as well as we see
now with Trump. Probably even more, as "greed is good" morale imperative implies. Also
provides opponents of Trump high moral ground to attach him and his entourage.
We can start analysis from Trump campaign against Hillary. If it would be more interesting
to analyze the current anti-Trump campaign from this angle. Especially recent Robert
Mueller's indictments. We can view then as a kind of attempt to "import" color revolution
methods of "regime change" into the USA in order to depose Trump.
The Chinese pastor Leung has outlined the 12 steps of regime change.
The key difference is that this time it is not the U.S. making regime change overseas, but
in America itself to serve the powers that be. The 12 steps are:
1.Dispatch CIA, MI6 and other intelligence officers as students, tourists, volunteers,
businessmen, reporters to the target country
2.Set up Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) under the guise of humanitarianism to
fight for "democracy" and "human rights" in order to attract advocates of freedom and
ideals
3.Attract local traitors, especially academics, politicians, reporters, soldiers etc.
through bribery or threaten those who have some stain in their life
4.If the target country has unions, bribe them
5.Pick a catchy theme or color for the revolution. Examples include the Praque spring
(1968), Velvet Revolution (Eastern Europe, 1989), Rose Revolution (Georgia, 2003), Cedar
Revolution (Lebanon, 2005), Orange Revolution (Ukraine 2004), Green Revolution (Iran),
Jasmine Revolution, Arab Spring and even Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution
6.Start protests for whatever reasons to kick off the revolution. It could be human
rights, democracy, government corruption or electoral fraud. Evidence isn't necessary; an
excuse will do.
7.Write protest signs and banners in English to let Americans see and get Americans
politicians and civilians involved
8.Let those corrupted politicians, intellectuals and union leaders join the protests and
call upon all people with grievances to join
9.The US and European mainstream media help by continuously emphasizing that the
revolution is caused by injustice and thereby gaining the support of the majority
10.When the whole world is watching stage a false-flag action. The target government
will soon be destabilized and lose support among its people
11.Add in violent agent provocateurs to provoke the police to use force. This will cause
the target government to lose the support of other countries and become "delegitimized" by
the international community
12.Send politicians to the US, EU, the UN to petition so that the target government will
face the threat of economic sanctions, no-fly zones and even airstrikes and an armed rebel
uprising.
Oh, I don't think so, Likbez. The really big numbers of arrests for corruption as part of
a power grab have not been in color revolution nations, but in long estabilished regimes. So
in China Xi Joinping has arrested about 1.4 million people in the CPC on anti-corruption
charges since he took power. No wonder nobody was voting against him at the recent party
congress.
Then we have Erdogan in Turkkey, who has arrested something like 70,000. Now a lot of
those have been busted for supposedly being part of the Gulenist copu attempt, but many have
been buseed for couurption. Yeah, color places do it, but these are the places with the
reallyi big numbers.
Oh, and the numbers arrested in Saudi Arabia apparently now exceed 200, and that is not
coloar revolution, nor is what has gone on in the US.
likbez , November 11, 2017 9:32 pm
"Oh, I don't think so, Likbez. The really big numbers of arrests for corruption as part of
a power grab have not been in color revolution nations, but in long estabilished
regimes."
Not true. After Ukrainian Maidan color revolution (2014) there were wide purges on
corruption charges of supporters of ousted President Yanukovich.
The current "Russiagate" color revolution against Trump recently started to concentrate on
corruption charges too (Mueller's first indictments). They are definitely not wide. But they send
a message to Trump and serve classic for color revolution de-legitimization purpose. In the context of the USA they probably do not actually need them to be wide as they can
be amplified 100 or 1000 times by anti-Trump MSM.
In both cases there is a strong support within the intelligence agencies of the actions
that can help to depose elected President (Brennan, Clapper, possibly Comey in case of the
USA). Along with the goal to froze the possibility of détente with Russia. Which was achieved
to the delight of all neocons.
There are also some discussions about the possibility that DNC hack was a false flag operation
in classic color revolutions fashion. See
While no doubt Bandar's very well-known role in Saudi "oil for arms"
programs which have come to define Saudi relations with the West over the past decades is a
trumped up and
"selective" charge (insofar as the highest levels of the state have overseen such shady
dealing) the al-Yamamah deal in particular - which goes back to the mid-1980's - has been an
historical embarrassment to both the UK and Saudi governments (BAE Systems was the prime
British contractor involved) for the astounding
level of fraudulent accounting exposed in UK courts.
Bandar bought an entire
village in the Cotswolds, a picturesque area of central England, and a 2,000-acre sporting
estate with part of the proceeds from kickbacks he received in the al-Yamamah arms deal, which
netted British manufacturer BAE £43bn ($56.5bn) in contracts for fighter aircraft.
As much as $30m (£15m) is alleged to have been paid into Bandar's dollar account at
Riggs Bank in Washington and the affair led to corruption probes in the US and UK, although the
case was dropped in the UK in 2006 after an intervention by then-prime minister Tony Blair.
But more likely is that Bandar has been caught up in this week's MBS dragnet for his
closeness to Western heads of state and foreign intelligence services. With MBS' aggressive
consolidation of power which could result in ascension to the throne at any moment, and with
fate of multiple princes and officials still unknown -- not the least of which is now ex-PM of
Lebanon Saad Hariri - a shroud of secrecy has resulted in myriad theories concerning what is
really happening behind the scenes.
Meanwhile news of Bandar's possible arrest and detention
hasn't spread very widely in international media reports as of this writing, but it will be
interesting to see the response in the West should the news be confirmed. Will Bandar's friends
in Washington and London go to bat for him? Or will Prince Bandar quietly recede into the
background of a permanent forced retirement from public life?
Most likely the latter will be the case. Regardless, for friends of the former powerful
Saudi intelligence director on either side of the Atlantic and within Saudi Arabia itself,
Bandar no doubt knows where all the skeletons are buried, and this alone makes him a worrisome,
volatile and unpredictable figure in the midst of a transfer of power.
Bandar was the Bush's inside man in Saudi........if he goes down, he might be willing to
tell all....about the crooked deals with the Bush Boys....lol......so much to gain, and yet
look at the price.......his life!
If what they're doing in Saudi Arabia is any indication, it might be a prelude to what's
going to happen here. There is no 'draining' the swamp and DJT knows it. They're going to have
to use dynamite and lots of it. There's a whole bunch of sealed indictments sitting at the US
District Court in DC and we know the Podesta's are just part of it. Imagine the huge snowflake
outcry if HRC was among them? Remember, they were screaming at the sky last night! HRC would
claim a coup and try to energize that group of idiots to rise up and it may take the National
Guard to quell them and jail them. From what I hear, that's exactly the plan...
Bandar was the piece of shit who lobbied the Bush administration to fly out the entire Bin
Laden family from the US without questioning them after 9/11.
The question arise: "Was hacking DNC another CIA false flag operation with the specific goal
to poison US-Russian relations and using Hillary Clinton as a patsy?"
According fo church committee report: "Approximately 50 of the [Agency] assets are individual
American journalists or employees of U.S. media organizations. Of these, fewer than half are
"accredited" by U.S. media organizations ... The remaining individuals are non-accredited
freelance contributors and media representatives abroad ... More than a dozen United States news
organizations and commercial publishing houses formerly provided cover for CIA agents abroad. A
few of these organizations were unaware that they provided this cover.
[7] "
"Journalist Carl
Bernstein , writing in an October 1977 article in the magazine Rolling Stone , claims that the Church
Committee report "covered up" CIA relations with news media, and names a number of journalists
whom he says worked with the CIA [10] Like the Church
Committee report, however, Bernstein does not refer to any Operation Mockingbird."
Notable quotes:
"... "Russian meddling" became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA's broader information operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against "Russian aggression" and to reign in Trump's plans to normalize relations with Moscow. ..."
"... Clinton became the "fall guy" in a darker, deep-state propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. ..."
"... the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against members of Trump's campaign. ..."
"... More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies -- the CIA, the FBI and the NSA -- not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were involved ..."
"... The article proves that the nation's premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a discredited "raw intelligence" report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned as a part of a smear campaign -- to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert the democratic process. ..."
"... The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it politically impossible to maintain the relationship. ..."
"... The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump's efforts at détente. ..."
"... Steele's July report helped to prop up the threadbare "hacking" storyline that was further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by CrowdStrike, "a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian." ..."
"... Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information (Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information can be trusted. But that's just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played by the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that's where we see signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale. ..."
"... Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele's, former British diplomat Sir Andrew Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain. ..."
"... This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in the sketchy "Trump dossier". Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but there's significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true. ..."
"... On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan and his "hand-picked" intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was used as the foundation for the ICA. ..."
"... It's clear that Brennan had no "information or intelligence" that would lead a reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump's entourage was colluding with Russian officials or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using the CIA's intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what is? ..."
"... It all started with Brennan, he's the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil, Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull Brennan's chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in America. ..."
"... So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary's Campaign, the roots of Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent state. ..."
For nearly a year, Hillary Clinton failed to admit that her campaign and the
Democratic National Committee had provided funding for the notorious dossier that alleged Trump
colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. Then, two weeks ago, the Washington
Post published a blockbuster article that proved that Clinton had been misleading the public
about her Campaign's role in producing the report.
Following the article's publication, Clinton went into hiding for more than a week
during which time she huddled with her political advisors to settle on a strategy for dealing
with the crisis.
"Russian meddling" became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA's broader information
operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against "Russian aggression" and to
reign in Trump's plans to normalize relations with Moscow.
The fact that the CIA had essentially extracted a credible narrative from sections of the
notorious dossier, left Hillary with no other option except to play-along even after the votes
had been counted. As a result, Clinton became the "fall guy" in a darker, deep-state
propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. Here's a little
background from Joe Lauria's "must read" article "The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate":
" the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and
apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
warrants against members of Trump's campaign.
More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence
"assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies -- the
CIA, the FBI and the NSA -- not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were
involved .
If in fact the Steele memos were a primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations
against Trump, then there may be no credible evidence at all." (Consortium News)
So, were "the Steele memos the primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against
Trump"? This is the pivotal question that still remains largely unanswered. As Lauria notes,
the FBI did in fact use the "salacious and unverified" dossier to obtain at least one FISA
warrant. This is from The Hill:
"The FBI used the dossier alleging Russian ties to President Trump's campaign associates
to help convince a judge to grant a warrant to secretly monitor former campaign aide Carter
Page, CNN reports.
FBI Director James Comey has cited the dossier in some of his briefings with lawmakers in
recent weeks as one of the information sources used by his bureau to bolster its probe, U.S.
officials briefed on the investigation told CNN." ("FBI used Trump dossier to help get warrant
to monitor ex-aide: report", The Hill)
The article proves that the nation's premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a
discredited "raw intelligence" report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned
as a part of a smear campaign -- to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could
easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert
the democratic process.
The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but
abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it
politically impossible to maintain the relationship. This is from a February article in
the Washington Post:
"The former British spy who authored a controversial dossier on behalf of Donald Trump's
political opponents alleging ties between Trump and Russia reached an agreement with the FBI
a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work, according to
several people familiar with the arrangement. The agreement to compensate former MI6 agent
Christopher Steele came as U.S. intelligence agencies reached a consensus that the Russians
had interfered in the presidential election by orchestrating hacks of Democratic Party email
accounts ..
Ultimately, the FBI did not pay Steele. Communications between the bureau and the former spy
were interrupted as Steele's now-famous dossier became the subject of news stories,
congressional inquiries and presidential denials, according to the people familiar with the
arrangement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to
discuss the matter." ("FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored controversial
Trump dossier", Washington Post)
The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and
unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not
to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking
claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump's efforts at
détente.
It's also worth noting , that Steele's earliest report implausibly alleges that the "Russian
authorities had been cultivating and supporting US presidential candidate Trump for at least 5
years." (No one had any idea that Trump would run for president 5 years ago.) The report also
details perverted sexual acts involving Trump and urinating prostitutes in a hotel in Moscow.
(All fake, of course) The point we are trying to make, is that Steele's first report focused on
corruption, perversion and blackmail, whereas, his second installment completely changed
direction to cyber-espionage operations on foreign targets.
Why?
It was because, on July 22, 2016, just days before the Democratic National Convention,
WikiLeaks published 20,000 emails hacked from DNC computers revealing the corrupt
inner-workings of the Democratic establishment. In response, Steele decided to craft a story
that would support the Dems plan to blame the Russians for the moral cesspit they-alone had
created. In other words, his report was a way of "passing the buck".
Steele's July report helped to prop up the threadbare "hacking" storyline that was
further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by
CrowdStrike, "a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian."
The hacking theme was also aided by the deluge of unsourced, evidence-lite articles cropping
up in the media, like this gem in the Washington Post:
"Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National
Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded
to the breach.
The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read
all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations.
The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted
by Russian spies " ("Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on
Trump", Washington Post)
What's remarkable about the above excerpt is that it follows the same basic approach to
propaganda as nearly all the other pieces on the topic. Unlike the lead-up to the Iraq War,
where journalists at the New York Times made every effort to create a believable storyline that
included references to aluminum tubes, Niger uranium, mobile weapons labs, etc. The media no
longer tries to support their narrative with evidence or eyewitnesses. The major media now
simply tells people what they want them to think and leave it at that. Even so, it doesn't
require much critical thinking to see the holes in the Russia hacking story. One merely needs
to suspend judgment long enough to see that main claims all emerge from (Democratic) sources
who have every reason to mislead the public. Here's an excerpt from Joe Lauria's article that
sums it up perfectly:
"The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled in the 2016
election were both paid for by the Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by
the Clinton campaign: the Steele dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers.
Think about that for a minute .
In other words, possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith
by Democratic partisans and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for
or generated by Democrats.
If for a moment one could remove the sometimes justified hatred that many people feel toward
Trump, it would be impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been cooked up
by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama's intelligence chiefs to serve political
and geopolitical aims." ("The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate", Consortium News)
Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information
(Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their
intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the
obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information
can be trusted. But that's just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played
by the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that's where we see
signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale.
As we noted earlier, the Clinton smear campaign would probably have ended after the votes
were counted had not the intel agencies, particularly the CIA, decided the hacking story could
be used to inflict more damage on Russia. It wasn't Clinton's decision to gather more
information for the dossier, but others whose motives have remained largely concealed. Who are
they?
According to a timeline in the Daily Caller:
November: The contract between the Democrats, Fusion and Steele ends along with the
presidential campaign.
Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about
the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele's, former British diplomat Sir Andrew
Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the
dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain.
Dec. 9: McCain provides a copy of the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey during a
meeting at the latter's office.
Dec. 13: Steele writes the final memo of the dossier. It alleges that a Russian tech
executive used his companies to hack into the DNC's email systems. The executive, Aleksej
Gubarev, denied the allegations after the dossier was published by BuzzFeed on Jan. 10, 2017.
He is suing both BuzzFeed and Steele.
Jan. 6: Comey and other intelligence community officials brief then-President-elect Trump on
some of the allegations made in the dossier.
Jan. 10: CNN reports that the briefing of Trump took place four days earlier. Citing that
reporting as justification, BuzzFeed publishes the dossier. (The Daily Mail)
John McCain? Is that who we're talking about? Was it McCain who paid former M16 agent
Christopher Steele to add another report to the dossier? Why?
Is it that hard to imagine that a Russophobic foreign policy wonk like McCain -- who has
expressed his vehement hatred for Vladimir Putin on the floor of the senate -- would hire a
mud-slinging free agent like Steele to craft a story that would further demonize Russia,
discourage Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, and reinforce the theory that the
Kremlin meddled in the 2016 elections?
Does that mean that McCain may have told Steele (or his intermediaries) precisely what he
wanted the final draft to say? It certainly seems probable. And here's something else to mull
over. This is from the Business Insider:
Steele gave the dossier to Republican Sen. John McCain. McCain then gave it to the FBI
director at the time, James Comey. Comey, along with the former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, briefed both President Barack
Obama and then-President elect Trump on the dossier's allegations in January.
Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence report
they released in January about Russia's election interference because they didn't want to
reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN." ("Mueller reportedly interviewed
the author of the Trump-Russia dossier -- here's what it alleges, and how it aligned with
reality", Business Insider)
This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was
released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and
collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in
the sketchy "Trump dossier". Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but
there's significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true.
On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian
hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This
same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan
and his "hand-picked" intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier
cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence
Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was
used as the foundation for the ICA.
Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016,
Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his
conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no
proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded
Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant
participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been
withheld from the public?
Not likely. It's more probable that Brennan was merely able to convince them that the
powerful foreign policy establishment required their cooperation on an issue that would have
grave impact on Washington's imperial plan for Syria, Ukraine, Central Asia and beyond?
Some readers might remember when Brennan testified before Congress way-back on May 23 and
boldly stated:
BRENNAN: "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed
contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump
campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals and it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able
to gain the cooperation of those individuals."
It's clear that Brennan had no "information or intelligence" that would lead a
reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump's entourage was colluding with Russian officials
or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that
Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using
the CIA's intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a
presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what
is? Here's a clip from the Washington Times:
"It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided
the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence
investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that
the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with
Russians
But he said he believed the contacts were numerous enough to alert the FBI, which began its
probe into Trump associates that same July, according to previous congressional testimony from
then-FBI director James B. Comey." (The Washington Times)
It all started with Brennan, he's the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was
not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm
facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil,
Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull
Brennan's chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in
America.
So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary's Campaign, the roots of
Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent
state.
The Russian Prosecutor General's Office has explained to RT how an "efficient mechanism" of
information sharing with the US works.
No private lawyers are involved in the process, the agency official said, denying
allegations that it has played a part in any meeting between Donald Trump Jr. with lawyer
Natalia Veselnitskaya.
Russiagate witch hunt is destroying CIA franchise in Facebook and Twitter, which were used
by many Russians and Eastern Europeans in general.
One telling sign of the national security state is "demonizing enemies of the state" including
using neo-McCarthyism methods, typically for Russiagate.
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence
for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely
gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since
the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it
probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people,
as the new Undermensch. If these people and US MSM recognized the reality that they are now
a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
Notable quotes:
"... Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage. On Monday, The Washington Post published a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians." ..."
"... The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health. ..."
"... In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT. ..."
"... The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of those efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia that undertakes "strategic communications." ..."
"... Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program. ..."
"... And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies, there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s when Sen. Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts with the Palestinians. ..."
"... The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex, which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives, who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran. ..."
"... After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed. ..."
"... Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a "regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet. ..."
"... The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin. ..."
"... The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities. ..."
"... Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution. ..."
"... Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards' to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. ..."
"... Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago. ..."
"... The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over, including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda. ..."
"... I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house -- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans -- were driven by Russia-Gate. ..."
"... Now, since the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing these all. ..."
"... Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state. There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against. ..."
"... Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?) Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary. ..."
"... It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's slander machine. ..."
"... At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the new order. ..."
"... The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association, and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon of McCarthyism."" ..."
"... Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners" in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake. ..."
"... In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more) ..."
"... Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States ..."
"... The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA This Roger Waters interview is worth watching. ..."
"... It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it. ..."
"... In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges, and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53) ..."
"... Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55) ..."
"... Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman? Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame. ..."
Special Report: Many American liberals who once denounced McCarthyism as evil are now learning
to love the ugly tactic when it can be used to advance the Russia-gate "scandal" and silence dissent,
reports Robert Parry.
The New York Times has finally detected some modern-day McCarthyism, but not in the anti-Russia
hysteria that the newspaper has fueled for several years amid the smearing of American skeptics as
"useful idiots" and the like. No, the Times editors
are accusing a Long Island Republican of McCarthyism for linking his Democratic rival to "New
York City special interest groups." As the Times laments, "It's the old guilt by association."
Yet, the Times sees no McCarthyism in the frenzy of Russia-bashing and guilt by association for
any American who can be linked even indirectly to any Russian who might have some ill-defined links
to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
On Monday, in the same edition that expressed editorial outrage over that Long Island political
ad's McCarthyism, the Times ran two front-page articles under the headline: "A Complex Paper Trail:
Blurring Kremlin's Ties to Key U.S. Businesses."
Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings
several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington
and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage.
On Monday, The Washington Post published
a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians."
The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously
true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading
"Russian propaganda."
We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her
new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket
after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health.
Though there was a video of Clinton's collapse on Sept. 11, 2016, followed by her departure from
the campaign trail to fight pneumonia – not to mention her earlier scare with blood clots – the
response from a group of 100 Clinton supporters was to question Brazile's patriotism: "It is
particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda,
spread by both the Russians and our opponents about our candidate's health."
In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear
anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT.
Pressing the Tech Companies
Just as Sen. Joe McCarthy liked to haul suspected "communists" and "fellow-travelers" before his
committee in the 1950s, the New McCarthyism has its own witch-hunt hearings, such as last week's
Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google for supposedly allowing Russians
to have input into the Internet's social networks. Executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google hauled
before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism on Oct. 31, 2017.Trying to appease Congress and fend off threats of government regulation, the rich tech companies
displayed their eagerness to eradicate any Russian taint.
Twitter's general counsel Sean J. Edgett
told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism that Twitter adopted an "expansive
approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account."
Edgett said the criteria included "whether the account was created in Russia, whether the user
registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email address, whether the user's
display name contains Cyrillic characters, whether the user frequently Tweets in Russian, and whether
the user has logged in from any Russian IP address, even a single time. We considered an account
to be Russian-linked if it had even one of the relevant criteria."
The trouble with Twitter's methodology was that none of those criteria would connect an account
to the Russian government, let alone Russian intelligence or some Kremlin-controlled "troll farm."
But the criteria could capture individual Russians with no link to the Kremlin as well as people
who weren't Russian at all, including, say, American or European visitors to Russia who logged onto
Twitter through a Moscow hotel.
Also left unsaid is that Russians are not the only national group that uses the Cyrillic alphabet.
It is considered a standard script for writing in Belarus, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbo-Croatia and
Ukraine. So, for instance, a Ukrainian using the Cyrillic alphabet could end up falling into the
category of "Russian-linked" even if he or she hated Putin.
Twitter's attorney also said the company conducted a separate analysis from information provided
by unidentified "third party sources" who pointed toward accounts supposedly controlled by the St.
Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), totaling 2,752 accounts. The IRA is typically described
in the U.S. press as a "troll farm" which employs tech-savvy employees who combat news and opinions
that are hostile to Russia and the Russian government. But exactly how those specific accounts were
traced back to this organization was not made clear.
And, to put that number in some perspective, Twitter claims 330 million active monthly users,
which makes the 2,752 accounts less than 0.001 percent of the total.
The Trouble with 'Trolling'
While the Russia-gate investigation has sought to portray the IRA effort as exotic and somehow
unique to Russia, the strategy is followed by any number of governments, political movements and
corporations – sometimes using enthusiastic volunteers but often employing professionals skilled
at challenging critical information or at least muddying the waters.
Those of us who operate on the Internet are familiar with harassment from "trolls" who may use
access to "comment" sections to inject propaganda and disinformation to sow confusion, to cause disruption,
or to discredit the site by promoting ugly opinions and nutty conspiracy theories.
As annoying as this "trolling" is, it's just a modern version of more traditional strategies used
by powerful entities for generations – hiring public-relations specialists, lobbyists, lawyers and
supposedly impartial "activists" to burnish images, fend off negative news and intimidate nosy investigators.
In this competition, modern Russia is both a late-comer and a piker.
The U.S. government fields legions of publicists, propagandists, paid journalists,
psy-ops specialists , contractors and non-governmental organizations to promote Washington's
positions and undermine rivals through information warfare.
The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of
those
efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid
for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia
that undertakes
"strategic communications."
Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world
to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered
many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National
Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant
malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
It's also ironic that the U.S. government touted social media as a great benefit in advancing
so-called "color revolutions" aimed at "regime change" in troublesome countries. For instance, when
the "green revolution" was underway in Iran in 2009 after the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
the Obama administration asked Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance so the street protesters
could continue using the platform to organize against Ahmadinejad and to distribute their side of
the story to the outside world.
During the so-called Arab Spring in 2011, Facebook, Twitter and Skype won praise as a means of
organizing mass demonstrations to destabilize governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Back then,
the U.S. government denounced any attempts to throttle these social media platforms and the free
flow of information that they permitted as proof of dictatorship.
Social media also was a favorite of the U.S. government in Ukraine in 2013-14 when the Maidan
protests exploited these platforms to help destabilize and ultimately overthrow the elected government
of Ukraine, the key event that launched the New Cold War with Russia.
Swinging the Social Media Club
The truth is that, in those instances, the U.S. governments and its agencies were eagerly exploiting
the platforms to advance Washington's geopolitical agenda by disseminating American propaganda and
deploying U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, which
taught
activists how to use social media to advance "regime change" scenarios.
A White Helmets volunteer pointing to the aftermath of a military attack.
While these uprisings were sold to Western audiences as genuine outpourings of public anger –
and there surely was some of that – the protests also benefited from U.S. funding and expertise.
In particular, NED and USAID provided money, equipment and training for anti-government operatives
challenging regimes in U.S. disfavor.
One of the most successful of these propaganda operations occurred in Syria where anti-government
rebels operating in areas controlled by Al Qaeda and its fellow Islamic militants used social media
to get their messaging to Western mainstream journalists who couldn't enter those sectors without
fear of beheading.
Since the rebels' goal of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad meshed with the objectives of
the U.S. government and its allies in Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Western journalists
uncritically accepted the words and images provided by Al Qaeda's collaborators.
The success of this propaganda was so extraordinary that the White Helmets, a "civil defense"
group that worked in Al Qaeda territory, became the go-to source for dramatic video and even was
awarded the short-documentary
Oscar for an info-mercial produced for Netflix – despite evidence that the White Helmets were
staging some of the scenes for propaganda purposes.
Indeed, one argument for believing that Putin and the Kremlin might have "meddled" in last year's
U.S. election is that they could have felt it was time to give the United States a taste of its own
medicine.
After all, the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure the continued rule
of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin. And there were the U.S.-backed street protests in Moscow
against the 2011 and 2012 elections in which Putin strengthened his political mandate. Those
protests earned the "color" designation the "snow revolution."
However, whatever Russia may or may not have done before last year's U.S. election, the Russia-gate
investigations have always sought to exaggerate the impact of that alleged "meddling" and molded
the narrative to whatever weak evidence was available.
The original storyline was that Putin authorized the "hacking" of Democratic emails as part of
a "disinformation" operation to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy and to help elect Donald Trump
– although
no hard evidence has been presented to establish that Putin gave such an order or that Russia
"hacked" the emails. WikiLeaks has repeatedly denied getting the emails from Russia, which also denies
any meddling.
Further, the emails were not "disinformation"; they were both real and, in many cases, newsworthy.
The DNC emails provided evidence that the DNC unethically tilted the playing field in favor of Clinton
and against Sen. Bernie Sanders, a point that Brazile also discovered in reviewing staffing and financing
relationships that Clinton had with the DNC under the prior chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The purloined emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta revealed the contents of Clinton's
paid speeches to Wall Street (information that she was trying to hide from voters) and pay-to-play
features of the Clinton Foundation.
A Manchurian Candidate?
Still, the original narrative was that Putin wanted his Manchurian Candidate (Trump) in the White
House and took the extraordinary risk of infuriating the odds-on favorite (Clinton) by releasing
the emails even though they appeared unlikely to prevent Clinton's victory. So, there was always
that logical gap in the Russia-gate theory.
Since then, however, the U.S. mainstream narrative has shifted, in part, because the evidence
of Russian election "meddling" was so shaky. Under intense congressional pressure to find something,
Facebook reported
$100,000 in allegedly "Russian-linked" ads purchased in 2015-17, but noted that only 44 percent
were bought before the election. So, not only was the "Russian-linked" pebble tiny – compared to
Facebook's annual revenue of $27 billion – but more than half of the pebble was tossed into this
very large lake after Clinton had already lost.
So, the storyline was transformed into some vague Russian scheme to exacerbate social tensions
in the United States by taking different sides of hot-button issues, such as police brutality against
blacks. The New York Times reported that one of these "Russian-linked" pages
featured photos of cute puppies , which the Times speculated must have had some evil purpose
although it was hard to fathom. (Oh, those devious Russians!).
The estimate of how many Americans may have seen one of these "Russian-linked" ads also keeps
growing, now up to as many as 126 million or about one-third of the U.S. population. Of course, the
way the Internet works – with any item possibly going viral – you might as well say the ads could
have reached billions of people.
Whenever I write an article or send out a Tweet, I too could be reaching 126 million or even billions
of people, but the reality is that I'd be lucky if the number were in the thousands. But amid the
Russia-gate frenzy, no exaggeration is too outlandish or too extreme.
Another odd element of Russia-gate is that the intensity of this investigation is disproportionate
to the lack of interest shown toward far better documented cases of actual foreign-government interference
in American elections and policymaking.
For instance, the major U.S. media long ignored the extremely well-documented case of Richard
Nixon colluding with South Vietnamese officials to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam
War peace talks to gain an advantage for Nixon in the 1968 election. That important chapter of history
only gained
The
New York Times' seal of approval earlier this year after the Times had dismissed the earlier
volumes of evidence as "rumors."
In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan's team – especially his campaign director William Casey in
collaboration with Israel and Iran – appeared to have gone behind President Jimmy Carter's back
to undercut Carter's negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran and essentially
doom Carter's reelection hopes.
There were a couple of dozen witnesses to that scheme who spoke with me and other investigative
journalists – as well as documentary evidence showing that President Reagan did authorize secret
arms shipments to Iran via Israel shortly after the hostages were freed during Reagan's inauguration
on Jan. 20, 1981.
However, since Vice President (later President) George H.W. Bush, who was implicated in the scheme,
was well-liked on both sides of the aisle and because Reagan had become a Republican icon, the October
Surprise case of 1980 was pooh-poohed by the major media and dismissed by a congressional investigation
in the early 1990s. Despite the extraordinary number of witnesses and supporting documents, Wikipedia
listed the scandal as a "conspiracy theory."
Israeli Influence
And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies,
there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost
any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s
when
Sen.
Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts
with the Palestinians.
If anyone doubts how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to pull the strings
of U.S. politicians, just watch one of his record-tying three addresses to joint sessions of Congress
and count how often
Republicans and Democrats jump to their feet in enthusiastic applause. (The only other foreign
leader to get the joint-session honor three times was Great Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)
So, what makes Russia-gate different from the other cases? Did Putin conspire with Trump to extend
a bloody war as Nixon did with the South Vietnamese leaders? Did Putin lengthen the captivity of
U.S. hostages to give Trump a political edge? Did Putin manipulate U.S. policy in the Middle East
to entice President George W. Bush to invade Iraq and set the region ablaze, as Israel's Netanyahu
did? Is Putin even now pushing for wider Mideast wars, as Netanyahu is?
Indeed, one point that's never addressed in any serious way is why is the U.S. so angry with Russia
while these other cases, in which U.S. interests were clearly damaged and American democracy compromised,
were treated largely as non-stories.
Why is Russia-gate a big deal while the other cases weren't? Why are opposite rules in play now
– with Democrats, many Republicans and the major news media flogging fragile "links," needling what
little evidence there is, and assuming the worst rather than insisting that only perfect evidence
and perfect witnesses be accepted as in the earlier cases?
The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests
in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex,
which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives,
who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran.
After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten
down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed.
Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a
"regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country
might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western
client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear
strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia.
The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons
by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for Trump
and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses have
blinded them to
the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they are playing into the
hands of the war-hungry neocons.
A Smokescreen for Repression
There also seems to be little or no concern that the Establishment is using Russia-gate as a smokescreen
for
clamping down on independent media sites on the Internet. Traditional supporters of civil liberties
have looked the other way as the rights of people associated with the Trump campaign have been trampled
and journalists who simply question the State Department's narratives on, say, Syria and Ukraine
are denounced as "Moscow stooges" and "useful idiots."
The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants
will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing
and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian
propaganda."
The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California,
warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility. You created these platforms,
and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it. Or we will."
As this authoritarian if not totalitarian future looms and as the dangers of nuclear annihilation
from an intentional or unintentional nuclear war with Russia grow, many people who should know better
are caught up in the Russia-gate frenzy.
I used to think that liberals and progressives opposed McCarthyism because they regarded it as
a grave threat to freedom of thought and to genuine democracy, but now it appears that they have
learned to love McCarthyism except, of course, when it rears its ugly head in some Long Island political
ad criticizing New York City.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Joe Tedesky , November 6, 2017 at 3:12 pm
I watched the C-Span 'Russian/2016 Election Investigation Hearings' in horror, as each congressperson
grilled the Hi-Tech executives in a way to suggest that our First Amendment Rights are now on
life support, and our Congress is ready to pull the plug at any moment. I thought, of how this
wasn't the America I was brought up to believe in. So as I have reached the age in life where
nothing should surprise me, I realize now how fragile our Rights are, in this warring nation that
calls itself America.
When it comes to Israel I have two names, Jonathan Pollard & the USS Liberty, and with that,
that is enough said.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:33 pm
This week's congressional hearings on "extremist content" on the Internet mark a new stage
in the McCarthyite witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies
and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet.
One after another, congressmen and senators goaded representatives of Google, Twitter and Facebook
to admit that their platforms were used to sow "social divisions" and "extremist" political opinions.
The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises
not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed
world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin.
The hearings revolved around claims that Russia sought to "weaponize" the Internet by harnessing
social anger within the United States. "Russia," said Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, promoted
"discord in the US by inflaming passions on a range of divisive issues." It sought to "mobilize
real Americans to sign online petitions and join rallies and protests."
The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label
all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing
opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities.
Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing
organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in
treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution.
Watching this Orwellian tragedy play out in our American society, where our Congress is insisting
that disclaimers and restrictions be placed upon suspicious adbuys and editorial essays, is counterintuitive
to what we Americans were brought up to belief. Why, all my life teachers, and adults, would warn
us students of reading the news to not to believe everything we read as pure fact, but to research
a subject before coming to a conclusion toward your accepting an opinion to wit. And with these
warnings of avoiding us being suckered into a wrong belief, we were told that this was the price
we were required to pay for having a free press society. This freedom of speech was, and has always
been the bedrock of our hopes and wishes for our belief in the American Dream.
Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards'
to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the
stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally
arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. Little by little, and especially since 911
one by one our civil liberties were taken away. Here again our freedom of speech is being destroyed,
and with this America is now where Germany had been in the mid-thirties. America's own guilty
conscience is rapidly doing some physiological projections onto their imaginary villain Russia.
All I keep hearing is my dear sweet mother lecturing me on how one lie always leads to another
lie until the truth will finally jump up and bite you in the ass, and think to myself of how wise
my mother had been with her young girl Southside philosophy. May you Rest In Peace Mum.
Martin , November 7, 2017 at 3:21 pm
Yankees chicks are coming home to roost. So many peoples rights and lives had to be extinguished
for Americans to have the illusion of pursuing their happiness, well, what goes around comes around.
Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:39 pm
Gee wiz Adam Schiff you make it sound as if signing petitions and rallying to causes and civil
protests are unamerican or something. And Russians on the internet are harnessing social anger!
Pathetic. These jerks who would have us believe they are interested in "saving" democracy or stopping
fascism have sure got it backward.
Geoffrey de Galles , November 8, 2017 at 12:33 pm
Joe, Allow me please, respectfully, to add Mordecai Vanunu -- Israel's own Daniel Ellsberg
-- to your two names.
Erik G , November 6, 2017 at 3:55 pm
Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate
a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely
as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle
and Plato warned thousands of years ago.
It is especially significant that the zionists are the sole beneficiaries of this scam as well
as the primary sponsors of the DNC, hoping to attack Russia and Iran to support Israeli land thefts
in the Mideast. It is well established that zionists control US mass media, which never examine
the central issue of our times, the corruption of democracy by the zionist/MIC/WallSt influence
upon the US government and mass media. Russia-gate is in fact a coverup for Israel-gate.
Why did we ever believe that the democrat party was a defender of free speech? These bought
and paid for tools of the economic elites are only interested in serving their masters with slavish
devotion. Selfishness and immorality are their stock in trade; betraying the public their real
intention.
Cratylus , November 6, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Great essay.
But one disagreement. I may agree with Trump on very, very few things, among them getting rid
of the horrible TPP, one cornerstone of Hillary's pivot; meeting with Putin in Hamburg; the Lavrov-Tillerson
arranged cease-fire in SE Syria; the termination of the CIA's support for anti-Assad jihadis in
Syria; a second meeting with Putin at the ASEAN conference this week; and in general the idea
of "getting along with Russia" (a biggie) which Russia-gate is slowing to a crawl as designed
by the neocons.
But Trump as an "incompetent buffoon" is a stretch albeit de rigueur on the pages of the NYT,
the programs of NPR and in all "respectable" precincts. Trump won the presidency for god's sake
– something that eluded the 17 other GOP primary candidates, some of them considered very"smart"
and Bernie and Jill, and in the past, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul – and the supposedly "very smart"
Hillary for which we should be eternally grateful. "Incompetent" hardly seems accurate. The respectable
commentariat has continually underestimated Trump. We should heed Putin who marveled at Trump's
seemingly impossible victory.
Bill Cash , November 6, 2017 at 4:13 pm
How do you explain all the connections between Trump acolytes and Russia and their lying about
it. I think they've all lied about their contacts. Why would they do that?I lived through the
real McCarthyism and, so far, this isn't close to what happened then.
Bill , November 6, 2017 at 4:40 pm
Probably because they are corruptly involved. Thing is, the higher priority is to avoid another
decades-long cold war risking nuclear war. Do you remember how many close calls we had in the
last one?
I'm more suspicious of Trump than most here, but even I think we need some priorities. Far
more extensive corruption of a similar variety keeps occurring and no one cares, as Mr. Parry
points out here yet again.
As for McCarthyism, whatever the current severity, the result is unfolding as a new campaign
against dissenting voices on the internet. That's supremely not-okay with me.
Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:46 pm
Right. Just because we don't yet have another fulll-fledged HUAC happening doesn't mean severe
perils aren't attached to this new McCarthyism. Censorship of dissent is supremely not-okay with
me as well.
That class of people lie as a matter of course; it's standard procedure. If you exacerbate
it by adding on the anti-Russia hysteria that was spewed out by the Democrats before the ink was
dry on the ballots, what possible reason would they have for being truthful?
The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over,
including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying
Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 7:10 pm
I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken
aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her
apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house
-- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans
-- were driven by Russia-Gate.
Obviously, Brazile, like millions of voters, saw these films and made appropriate inferences:
that Hillary's basic health and stamina were a question mark. Of course, Hillary also offered
Americans nothing in her campaign rhetoric. She came across as the mother-in-law from hell.
Was it also a Russia-Gate initiative when Hillary hid from her supporters on election night
and let Podesta face the screaming sobbing supporters? Too much spiked vodka or something? Our
political stage in the USA is a madhouse.
Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:20 pm
These people probably have "connections" with a relatively large number of people, and only
very small fraction of the people they have contact with are probably Russians. Now, since
the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in
the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere
of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have
contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing
these all.
Today's political atmosphere in the United States probably has a lot in common with the Soviet
Union. There, people got in trouble if they had contacts with people from Western, capitalist
countries – and if they were asked and did not mention these contacts in order to avoid problems,
they could get in trouble even more.
I think it is absolutely clear that no one who takes part in this hateful anti-Russian campaign
can pretend to be liberal or progressive. The kind of society these xenophobes who detest pluralism
and accuse everyone who has opinions outside the mainstream of being a foreign agent is absolutely
abhorrent, in my view.
Leslie F , November 6, 2017 at 6:40 pm
Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state.
There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the
US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will
be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian
government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not
just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against.
occupy on , November 7, 2017 at 12:47 am
Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon
pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the
way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was
rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?)
Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The
Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only
interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary.
In the meantime, Trump Jr. was connected with an evil Russian (Natalia), William Browder was
able to link the neocon-hated Trump Sr with neocon-hated, evil Russians (who currently have a
warrant out for Browder's arrest on a 15 [or 50?] million dollar tax evasion charge), and neocons
have a good chance of claiming victory out of chaos (as is their style and was their intent for
the Middle East [not Washington DC!] in the neocon Project For a New American Century – 1998).
Clinton may have lost power in Washington DC, but Clinton-supporting neocons may not have – thanks
to George Papadopoulis. We shall see. Something tells me the best is yet to come out of the Mueller
Investigations.
Roy G Biv , November 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm
You are seeing it clearly Bill. This site was once a go-to-source for investigative journalism.
Now it is a place for opinion screeds, mostly with head buried in the sand about the blatant Russian
manipulation of the 2016 election. The dominant gang of posters here squash any dissent and dissenting
comments usually get deleted within a day. I don't understand why and how it came to be so, but
the hysterical labeling of Comey/Mueller investigations as McCarthyism by Parry has ruined his
sterling reputation for me.
Stygg , November 7, 2017 at 2:24 pm
If this "Russian manipulation" was as blatant as everyone keeps telling me, how come it's all
based on ridiculous BS instead of evidence? Where's the beef?
anon , November 7, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Unable to substantiate anything you say nor argue against anything said here, you disgrace
yourself. Do you think anyone is fooled by your repeated lie that you are a disaffected former
supporter of this site? And you made the "Stygg" reply above.
Tom Hall , November 6, 2017 at 4:46 pm
It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist
witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while
the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped
in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's
slander machine.
At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the
path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something
they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the
unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold
War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the
new order.
So it's no surprise that liberalism is the rallying point for a new wave of repression. The
dangerous buffoon currently occupying the White House stands as a perfect foil to the phony indignation
of the liberal leadership- Schumer, Pelosi et al.. The jerk was made to order, and they mean to
dump him as their ideological forebears unloaded old Tail Gunner Joe. In fact, Trump is so odious,
the Democrats, their media colleagues and major elements of the national security state believe
that bringing down the bozo can be made to look like a triumph of democracy. Of course, by then
dissent will have been stamped out far more efficiently than Trump and his half-assed cohorts
could have achieved. And it will be done in the name of restoring sanity, honoring the constitution,
and protecting everyone from the Russians. I was born in the fifties, and it looks like I'm going
to die in the fifties.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:37 pm
Truman started it. And he used it very well.
THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE AND ORIGINS OF ""McCARTHYISM
By Richard M. Freeland
This book argues that Truman used anti-Communist scare tactics to force Congress to implement
his plans for multilateral free trade and specifically to pass the Marshall Plan. This is a sound
emphasis, but other elements of postwar anti-Communist campaigns are neglected, especially anti-labor
legislation; and Freeland attributes to Truman a ""go-soft"" attitude toward the Soviets, which
is certainly not proven by the fact that he restrained the ultras Forrestal, Kennan, and Byrnes
-- indeed, some of Freeland's own citations confirm Truman's violent anti-Soviet spirit.
The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association,
and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political
and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon
of McCarthyism."" Freeland's revisionism is confined and conservative: he deems the Soviets
most responsible for the Cold War and implies that ""subversion"" was in fact a menace.
You are one of the very few critical journalists today willing to print objective measures
of the truth, while the MSM spins out of control under the guise of "protecting America" (and
their vital sources), while at the same time actually undermining the very principles of a working
democracy they sanctimoniously pretend to defend. It makes me nostalgic for the McCarthy era,
when we could safely satirize the Army-McCarthy Hearings (unless you were a witness!). I offer
the following as a retrospective of a lost era.:
Top-Ten Criteria for being a Putin Stooge, and a Chance at Winning A One Way Lottery Ticket:to
the Gala Gitmo Hotel:
:
(1) Reading Consortium News, Truth Dig, The Real News Network, RT and Al Jeziera
(2) Drinking Starbucks and vodka at the Russian Tea Room with Russian tourists (with an embedded
FSS agent) in NYC.
(3) Meeting suspicious tour guides in Red Square who accept dollars for their historical jokes.
(4) Claiming to catch a cell phone photo of the Putin limousine passing through the Kremlin Tower
gate.
(4) Starting a joint venture with a Russian trading partner who sells grain to feed Putin's stable
of stallions. .
(5) Catching the flu while being sneezed upon in Niagara Falls by a Russian violinist.
(6) Finding the hidden jewels in the Twelfth Chair were nothing but cut glass.
(7) Reading War and Peace on the Brighton Beach ferry.
(8) Playing the iPod version of Rachmaninoff's "Vespers" through ear buds while attending mass
in Dallas, TX..
(9) Water skiing on the Potomac flying a pennant saying "Wasn't Boris Good Enough?"
(10) Having audibly chuckled even once at items (1) – (9). Thanks Bob, Please don't let up!
Lisa , November 6, 2017 at 7:47 pm
Howard,
I chuckled loudly more than once – but luckily, no one heard me! No witnesses! So you are acquainted
with the masterpiece "12 chairs"? Very suspicious.
David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:42 pm
I've heard that's Mel Brooks favorite among his own movies.
David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:48 pm
I always find it exasperating when I have to remind the waiter at the diner to bring Russian
dressing along with the reuben sandwich, but these days I wonder if my loyalty is being tested.
Dave P. , November 6, 2017 at 10:27 pm
David G –
They will change the name of dressing very soon. Remember 2003 when French refused to endorse
the invasion of Iraq. I think they unofficially changed the name of "French Fries" to "Freedom
Fries".
It is just the start. The whole History is being rewritten – in compliance with Zionist Ideology.
Those evil Russkies will be shown as they are!
Clearly, since I've published one book by a Russian, one by a now-deceased US ex-pat living
in Russia, and have our catalog made available in Russia via our international distributor, I
am a traitor to the US. If you add in my staunch resistance to the whole Russiagate narrative
AND the fact I post links to stories in RT America, I'm doomed.
I wish I could think I'm being wholly sarcastic.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:38 pm
You are not alone. Many of us live outside the open air prison and feel the same way
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 5:29 pm
Robert Parry has described "the New McCarthyism" having "its own witch-hunt hearings". In fact
"last week's Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google" was merely an exercise
in political theatre because all three entities already belong to the "First Draft" coalition:
Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as
a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners"
in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and
Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake.
In a remarkable post-truth declaration, the "First Draft" coalition insists that members will
"work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".
In the "post-truth" regime of US and NATO hybrid warfare, the deliberate distortion of truth
and facts is called "verification".
The Washington Post / PropOrNot imbroglio, and "First Draft" coalition "partner" organizations'
zeal to "verify" US intelligence-backed fake news claims about Russian hacking of the US presidential
election, reveal the "post-truth" mission of this new Google-backed hybrid war propaganda alliance.
Hysterical demonization of Russia escalated dramatically after Russia thwarted the Israeli-Saudi-US
plan to dismember the Syrian state.
With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of
Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern Lebanon
and Syria.
South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war in
southern Lebanon.
Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli planned
assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or Russia.
Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober heads
are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be optimistic.
"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of 2006
due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to occupy key
strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency of attacks in
Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in the fighting in
the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists considerable political pressure
to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the complexity and unpredictability of
the situation we may assume the future conflict will feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah.
Based on the bellicose statements of the leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be
initiated by Israel.
"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in the
north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be possible
to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of civilians. Hezbollah
units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and simultaneously open fire
on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population of southern Lebanon will most
likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing great damage to the social infrastructure
and some damage to Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected
and camouflaged rocket launchers and launch sites.
"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently, regardless
of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and electronic warfare
systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including through the use of fibre-optic
communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has such equipment during the 2006 war.
Smaller units will operate independently, working with open communication channels, using the
pre-defined call signs and codes.
"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN peacekeeping
mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement of a greater number
of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding heights and begin to prepare
for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The Israelis do not score a quick victory
as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need to secure occupied territory with patrols
and checkpoints will cause further losses.
"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian infrastructure,
allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli cities. While Israel's
missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched missiles, there are not enough
of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation paralyzes life in the country. As soon
IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the
bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets
do not require much time to prepare for launch and may target the entire territory of Israel,
causing further losses.
"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems certain
is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's exercises.
Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite the fact that
they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.
"Conclusions
"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster Israeli
public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the victory would
be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of relative capabilities,
Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast, the Hezbollah has thus far
demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.
"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes are
paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest Israeli
leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite dumb. In reality,
Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the already too nervous
neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it for their leader. For Hezbollah,
it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to them. According to the IDF soldiers who
served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous
terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights,
tunnels, and settlements, where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.
"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good time
for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb says:
'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."
Yes, the latest "big fish" outed yesterday as an agent of the Kremlin was the U.S. Secretary
of Commerce (Wilbur Ross) who was discovered to hold stock in a shipping company that does business
with a Russian petrochemical company (Sibur) whose owners include Vladimir Putin's son-in-law
(Kirill Shamalov). Obviously the orders flow directly from Putin to Shamalov to Sibur to the shipping
company to Ross to Trump, all to the detriment of American citizens.
From RT (another tainted source!): "US Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr. has a stake in
a shipping firm that receives millions of dollars a year in revenue from a company whose key owners
include Russian President Vladimir Putin's son-in-law and a Russian tycoon sanctioned by the U.S.
Treasury Department as a member of Putin's inner circle," says the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the main publisher of the Paradise Papers. After the report
was published, some US lawmakers accused Ross of misleading Congress during his confirmation hearings."
Don't go mistaking the "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists for "Consortium
News." These guys are dedicated witch hunters, searching for anyone with six degrees of separation
to Vladimir Putin and his grand plan to thwart the United States and effect regime change within
its borders.
In a clear attempt to weasel out of his traitorous transgression, Ross stated "In a separate
interview with CNBC, that Sibur [which is NOT the company he owned stock in] was not subject to
US sanctions." 'A company not under sanction is just like any other company, period. It was a
normal commercial relationship and one that I had nothing to do with the creation of, and do not
know the shareholders who were apparently sanctioned at some later point in time,' he said." Since
when can we start allowing excuses like that? Not knowing that someone holds stock in a company
that does business with a company in which you own stock may at some later point in time become
sanctioned by the all-wise and all-good American federal government?
I can't wait till they make the first Ben Stiller comedy based on this fiasco twenty years
from now. It will be hilarious slap-stick, maybe titled "Can You Believe these Mother Fockers?"
President Chelea Clinton of our great and noble idiocracy will throw out the first witch on opening
day of the movie.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Let's be honest. Most Americans think McCarthy is a retail store. No education. And they think
Russia is the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Trump is in Japan to start war with N. Korea to hide the
blemishes or the canker on his ass. America is rapidly collapsing.
Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence
for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists
largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established
fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence
services, it probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian
people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia
or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that
they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
But when people daily spew hate against anything and anyone "Russia linked" and still don't
recognize that they have gone over to the far right and even claim they are liberal or progressive,
this is completely absurd.
McCarthyism, as terrible as it was, at least originally was motivated by hatred against a certain
political ideology that also had its bad sides. But today's Russiagate peddlers clearly are motivated
by hatred against a certain ethnicity, a certain country, and a certain language. I don't think
there is any way to avoid the conclusion that with their hatred against anyone who is "Russia
linked", they have become right-wing extremists.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:46 pm
"Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world
to harass people who criticize the Zionist project."
Yes, very well organized.
In fact virtually every synagogue is a center for organizing people to harass others who are exercising
their First Amendment rights to diseminate information about Israel's occupation of Palestine.
The link below is to a protest and really, personal attack, against a Unitarian minister in Marblehead,
Mass., for daring to screen the film ""The Occupation of the American Mind, Israel's Public Relations
War in the United States." In other words, for daring to provide an dissenting opinion and, simply,
to tell the truth. Ironic is that the protesters' comment actually reinforce the basic message
of the film.
No other views on Israel will be allowed to enter the public for a good airing and discussion
and debate. The truth about the illegal Israeli occupation will be shouted down, and those who
try to provide information to the public on this subject will be vilified as "anti-semites." Kudos
to this minister for screening the film.
The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States (2016)
examines pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda efforts within the U.S.
This important documentary, narrated by Roger waters, exposes how the Israeli government, the
U.S. government, and the pro-Israel Lobby join forces to shape American media coverage in Israel's
favor.
Documentary producer Sut Jhally is professor of Communication at the University of Massachusetts,
and a leading scholar on advertising, public relations, and political propaganda. He is also the
founder and Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation, a documentary film company that
looks at issues related to U.S. media and public attitudes.
Jhally is the producer and director of dozens of documentaries about U.S. politics and media
culture, including Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land: U.S. Media & the Israeli–Palestinian
Conflict.
The Occupation of the American Mind provides a sweeping analysis of Israel's decades-long battle
for the hearts, minds, and tax dollars of the American people – a battle that has only intensified
over the past few years in the face of widening international condemnation of Israel's increasingly
right-wing policies.
Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 2:45 am
Abe –
The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish
some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview
is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA
This Roger Waters interview is worth watching.
It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered
the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks
to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every
where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy
witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it.
As a Canadian I could not get over, even though I was just a teenager back then, just how a
people in a supposedly advanced country could be so collectively paniced. I think back then it
was just a scam to get rid of unions and any kind of collective action against the owners of the
country, and this time around I think it is just a continuation of that scam, to frighten people
into subservience to the police state. I heard a women on TV today commenting on the Texas masscre,
she said " The devil never sleeps", well in the USA the 1/10 of 1% never sleeps when it comes
to more control, more pwoer and more wealth, in fact I think they are after the very last shekle
still left in the pockets of the bottom 99.9 % of the population. Those evil Russians are just
a ploy in the scam.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:58 pm
"The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons
by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for
Trump and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses
have blinded them to the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they
are playing into the hands of the war-hungry neocons."
And they are driving more and more actual and potential Dem Party members away in droves, further
weakening the party and depriving it of its most intelligent members. Any non-senile person knows
that this is all BS and these people are not only turning their backs on the Dem Party but I think
many of them are being driven to the right by their disgust with this circus and the exposure
of the party's critical weaknesses and derangement.
Paolo , November 6, 2017 at 6:59 pm
You correctly write that "the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure
the continued rule of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin". The irony is that a few years later
Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor, and presumably the 'mericans gave him a hand to win his
first term.
How extremely sad it is to see the USA going totally nuts.
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:00 pm
In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed
the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges,
and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after
his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53)
Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to
McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the
Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part
of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead
of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless
McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55)
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:15 pm
On March 9, 1954, Edward R. Murrow and a news team at CBS produced a half-hour See It Now special
titled "A Report on Senator Joseph McCarthy".
Murrow interspersed his own comments and clarifications into a damaging series of film clips
from McCarthy's speeches. He ended the broadcast with a warning:
"As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves–as
indeed we are–the defenders of freedom, what's left of it, but we cannot defend freedom abroad
by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and
dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies, and whose fault
is that? Not really his. He didn't create the situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and rather
successfully. Cassius was right: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.'"
CBS reported that of the 12,000 phone calls received within 24 hours of the broadcast, positive
responses to the program outnumbered negative 15 to 1. McCarthy's favorable rating in the Gallup
Poll dropped and was never to rise again.
Gary , November 6, 2017 at 11:34 pm
Sad to see so many hypocrites here espousing freedom from McCarthyism while they continue to
vote for capitalist candidates year in year out. Think about the fact that in 2010 when Citizens
United managed to get the Supreme Court to certify corporations as people the fear among many
was that this would open US company subsidiaries to be infiltrated by foreign money. I guess it
is happening in spades with collusion between Russian money & Trump's organization along with
Facebook, Twitter & many others. How Mr. Parry can maintain that this parallels the 1950s anti-communist
crusade is quite ingenuous. When libertarians, the likes of Bannon, Mercer, Trump et al, with
their "destruction of the administrative state" credo are compared to the US communists of the
50s we know progressives have become about as disoriented as can be.
geeyp , November 7, 2017 at 3:30 am
I guess these "Paradise Papers" were released just yesterday, i.e., Sunday the 5th. Somehow
I didn't get to it.
john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 6:01 am
So it looks like Hillary will be crossing Putin off her Xmas card list this year! I sometimes
wonder if all we posters on here and other similar sites are on a list somewhere and when the
day of reckoning comes, the list will be produced and we will have to account for our treasonous
behaviour? Of course, one man's treason is another man's truth. I suppose in the end it boils
down to the power thing. If you have a perceived enemy you can claim the need for an army. If
you have an army you have power and with that power you can dispose of anyone who disagrees with
you simply by calling them the enemy.
Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 9:38 am
John, your post made me wonder whether I would be on a list of traitors. I've written three
posts, starting yesterday, and tried to explain something about the background of Yuri Milner,
mentioned in the article. After "your comment has been posted, thank you" nothing has appeared
on this thread.
Well, once more: Milner is known to me as a well-educated physicist from Moscow State University,
and the co-founder and financier of The Breakthrough Prize, handing out yearly awards to promising
scientists, with a much larger sum than the humble Nobel Prize. The awarding ceremony is held
in December in Silicon Valley.
john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 12:34 pm
Hi Lisa, I have just looked up Milner on Wiki and he appears to be into everything including
investment in internet companies. He is the co-founder of the "break through prize" that you mention
and seems to have backed face book and twitter in their start up. I don't see why you posts haven't
appeared as anyone can look Milner up on Wiki and elsewhere in great detail. You don't say where
you have tried to post, but I would have thought on this site you would have no trouble whatever.
If you have watched the last episode of 'cross talk' on RT you will see that anyone who as ever
mentioned Russia in a public place is regarded as some kind of traitor. I guess you and me are
due for rendition anytime now!! LOL
Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm
Hi John,
Naturally I had been trying to post on this site. First I tried three times in the comment space
below all other posts, and they never went through. Only when I posted a reply to someone else's
comment, my reply appeared. Maybe some technical problem on the site.
My motive was to show that Milner is doing worthwhile things with his millions, even if he
is an "evil Russian oligarch". The mentioned prize has its own website: breakthroughprize.org.
Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) is a board member.
The prize is certainly a "Putin conspiracy", as it has links to Russia. (sarc)
Zachary Smith , November 7, 2017 at 8:05 pm
Maybe some technical problem on the site.
Possibly that's the case. Disappearing-forever posts happen to me from time to time. For at
least a while afterwards I cut/paste what I'm about to attempt to "post" to a WORD file before
hitting the "post comment" button.
In any event, avoid links whenever possible. By cut/pasting the exact title of the piece you're
using as a reference, others can quickly locate it themselves without a link.
K , November 7, 2017 at 9:44 am
I'm a lifelong Democrat. I was a Bernie supporter. But logic dictates my thinking. The Russia
nonsense is cover for Hillary's loss and a convenient hammer with which to attack Trump. Not biting.
Bill Maher is fixated on this. The Rob Reiner crowd is an embarrassment. The whole thing is embarrassing.
The media is inept. Very bizarre times.
Excellent article which should shed light on the misunderstandings manifested to manipulate
and censor Americans. Personally, it's ludicrous to imply that Russia was the primary reason I
could not vote for Hillary. My interest in Twitter peaked when Sidney Blumenthal's name popped
up selling arms in Libya. He was on The Clinton Foundation's Payroll for $120K, while the Obama
Administration specifically told HRC Sidney Blumenthal was not to work for the State Department.
Further research showed Chris Stevens had no knowledge of Sidney Blumenthal selling arms in
Libya. Hillary NEVER even gave Chris Stevens, a candidate with an outstanding background for diplomatic
relations in the Middle East, her email. Chris Stevens possessed a Law Degree in International
Trade, and had previously worked for Senator Lugar (R). Senator Lugar had warned HRC not to co-mingle
State Department business with The Clinton Foundation.
To add salt to the wound Hillary choose to put a third rate security firm in Libya, changing
firms a couple of short weeks before the bombing. I think she anticipated the bombing, remarking
"What difference does it make? " at the congressional hearings.
If you remember Guccifer (that hacker) he said he'd hacked both Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal.
He also said he found Sidney Blumenthal's account more interesting.
That's just one reason why I started surfing the internet. Sidney Blumenthal was a name that
hung in the cobwebs of my memory, and I wanted to know what this scum-job of a journalist was
doing!
Then there was Clinton Cash, BoysonTheTracks, Clinton Chronicles, the outrageous audacity of
the Democrats Superdelegates voting before a single primary ballot had been cast, MSM bias to
Hillary, Kathy Shelton's video "I thought you should know." and maybe around September 2016, wondering
what dirty things Hillary had done with Russia since 1993?
So I guess it's true. In the end after witnessing what has transpired since the election I
would not vote for Hillary because she'd rather risk WWIII, than have the TRUTH come out why she
lost.
After living in Europe much of the last three years we've recently returned to the U.S. I must
say that life here feels very much like I'm living within a strange Absurdist theatre play of
some sort (not that Europe is vastly better). Truth, meaning, rationality, mean absolutely nothing
at this juncture here in the United States. Reality has been turned on its head. The only difference
between our political parties runs along identity politics lines: "do you prefer your drone strikes,
illegal invasions, regime change black-ops, economic warfare and massive government spying 'with'
or 'without' gender specific bathrooms?" MSM refer to this situation as "democracy" while of course
any thinking person knows we are actually living within a totalitarian nightmare. Theatre of the
Absurd as a way of life. I must admit it feels pretty creepy being home again.
I wish it wasn't asking too much, but I suspect it is. If the NYT was reporting it, I'd feel
better about our chances. But the Deep State controls the narrative, and thus controls Pompeo,
Trump's order notwithstanding. I hope I'm wrong.
Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Yes Joe. It is rather painful to watch as you said this Orwellian Tragedy playing out in the
Country which has just about become a police state. For those of us who grew up admiring the Western
Civilization starting with the Greeks and Romans, and then for its institutions enshrining Individual
Rights; and its scientific, literary, and cultural achievements, it is as if it still happening
in some dream, though it has been coming for some time now – more than two decades now at least.
The System was not perfect but I think that it was good as it could get. The system had been in
decline for four decades or so now.
From Robert Parry's article:
"The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California, warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility.
You created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do
something about it. Or we will."
Diane Feinstein's multi-billionaire husband was implicated in those Loan and Savings scandals
of Reagan and G.H.W. Bush Era and in many other financial scandals later on but Law did not touch
him. He has a dual residency in Israel. These are very corrupt people.
Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Perle, Nulad-Kagan clan, Kristol, Gaffney . . . the list goes
on; add Netanyahu to it. In the Hollywood Harvey Weinstein, Rob Reiner. and the rest . . . In
Finance and wall Street characters like Sandy Weiss and the gang. The Media and TV is directly
or indirectly owned and controlled by "The Chosen People". So, where would you put the blame for
all what is going on in this country, and all this chaos, death, and destruction going on in ME
and many countries in Africa.
Any body who points out their role in it or utters a word of criticism of Israel is immediately
called an anti-semite. Just to tell my own connections, my wife youngest sister is married to
person who is Jewish (non-practicing). In all the relatives we have, they are closest to us for
more than thirty five years now. They are those transgender common restroom liberals, but we have
many common views and interests. In life, I have never differentiated people based on their ethnic
or racial backgrounds; you look at the principles they stand for.
As I see it, this era of Russia-Gate and witch hunt is hundred times worse than McCarthy era.
It seems irreversible. There is no one in the political establishment or elsewhere in Media or
academia left for regeneration of the "Body Politic". In fact, what we are witnessing here is
much worse than it was in the Soviet Union. It is complete degeneration of political leadership
in this country. It extends to Media and other institutions as well. People in Soviet Union did
not believe the lies they were told by the government there. And there arose writers like Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn in Soviet Union. What is left here now except are these few websites?
Maedhros , November 7, 2017 at 4:27 pm
If there is evidence, you should be able to provide some so that readers can analyze and discuss
it. Exactly what evidence has been provided that the Russian government manipulated the 2016 election?
CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 10:42 pm
Robert Parry You Nailed It!!!
I need to do a little research to see how far back you used the term "New McCarthyism" to describe
the next cold war with Russia. It was about the same time the first allegations of a Trump-Russia
conspiracy was floated by the MSM. I do not pretend to know how much airtime they spent covering
their coverup for all that the MSM did to profit from SuperPacs. They have webed a weave that
conspires to conceive to the tunes of billions of dollars spent to reprieve their intent to deceive
us and distract us away from their investment in Donald Trump which was the real influence in
the public spaces to gain mega profits from extorting the SuperPacs into spending their dollars
to defeat the trumped up candidate they created and boosted. One has to look no further than the
Main Stream Press (MSM) to find the guilty party with motive and opportunity to cash in on a candidacy
which if not for the money motive would not pass any test of journalistic integrity but would
make money for the Media.
The Russian Boogeyman was created shortly after the election and is an obvious attempt to shield
and defend the actions of the MSM which was the real fake news covered in the nightly news leading
up to the election which sought to get money rather than present the facts.
This is an example of how much power and influence the MSM has on us all to be able to upend
a National election and turn around and blame some foreign Devil for the results of an election.
The Russians had little to do with Trumps election. The MSM had everything to do with it. They
cast blame on the Russians and in so doing create a new Cold War which suits the power establishment
and suitably diverts all of our attention away from their machinations to influence the last presidential
election.
Win Win. More Nuclear Weapons and more money for the MIC and more money for all of the corporations
who would profit from a new Cold War.
Profit in times of deceit make more money from those who cheat.
CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 11:25 pm
Things not talked about:
1. James Comey and his very real influence on the election has never entered the media space
for an instant. It has gone down the collective memory hole. That silence has been deafening because
he was the person who against DOJ advice reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the
Servergate investigation after it had been closed by the FBI just days before the election.
The silence of the media on the influence on the election by the reopening of James Comey's
Servergate investigation and how the mass media press coverage implicating Hillary Clinton (again)
in supposed crimes (which never resulted in an indictment) influenced the National Election in
ways that have never been examined by the MSM is a nail in the coffin of media impartiality.
Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman?
Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his
own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken
of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants
to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces
us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election
but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame.
It serves many interests. The MSM lies to all of us for the benefit of the MIC. It serves to
support White House which will deliver maximum investments in the Defense Industry. It does this
by creating a foreign enemy which they create for us to fear and be afraid of.
It is obvious to everyone with a clear eyed history of how the last election went down and
how the MSM and the government later played upon our fears to grab more cash have cashed in under
the present administration.
It is up to us to elect leaders who will reject this manipulation by the media and who will
not be cowed by the establishment. We have the power enshrined in our Constitution to elect leaders
who will pave the path forward to a better future.
Those future leaders will have to do battle with a media infrastructure that serves the power
structure and conspires to deceive us all.
Clear critical thinking must accompany free speech, however, and irrationality seems to have
beset Americans, too stuck in the mud of identity politics. Can they get out? I have hopes that
a push is coming from the new multipolar world Xi and Putin are advocating, as well as others
(but not the George Soros NWO variety). The big bully American government, actually ruled by oligarchy,
has not been serving its regular folks well, so things are falling apart. Seems like the sex scandals,
political scandals especially of the Democrat brand, money scandals are unraveling to expose underlying
societal sickness in the Disunited States of America.
It is interesting that this purge shakeup in Saudi Arabia is happening in 2017, one hundred
years since the shakeup in Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution. So shake-ups are happening everywhere.
I think a pattern is emerging of major changes in world events. Just yesterday I read that because
"Russia-gate" isn't working well, senators are looking to start a "China-gate", for evidence of
Trump collusion with Chinese oligarchs. Ludicrous. As Seer once said, "The Empire in panic mode".
Patricia, thanks for the info on Sid Blumenthal, HRC and the selling of arms from Libya to
ME jihadists, which seems to exonerate Chris Stevens from those dirty deeds and lays blame squarely
at Blumenthal's and Clinton's doorstep; changes my thinking. And thanks to Robert Parry for continuing
to push back at the participation of MSM and government players in the Orwellian masquerade being
pulled on the sheeple.
Truther , November 8, 2017 at 12:54 pm
Just the facts for those of you who have minds still open. suggest you bookmark it quickly
as the moderator will delete it within the hour.
"... Third, Manafort's efforts mattered bigly. In 2010, he helped Victor F. Yanukovych become president of Ukraine. An unquestionably nasty piece of work, Yanukovych was, according to Farkas, "Putin's man in Kiev." Yet like it or not, he came to power as the result of democratic election. In 2013, Yanukovych opted against joining the EU, which along with NATO, had, in Farkas's words, "experienced a burst of membership expansion" right up to Russia's own borders. ..."
"... In response to Yanukovych's action, "the Ukrainian people," that is, the enlightened ones, "took to the streets," forcing him to flee the country. Rather than bowing to the expressed will of the people, however, Russia's Vladimir Putin "instigated a separatist movement" in eastern Ukraine, thereby triggering "a war between Russia and Ukraine that continues to this day." ..."
"... To accept Farkas's account as truthful, one would necessarily conclude that as Manafort was hijacking history, the United States remained quietly on the sidelines, an innocent bystander sending prayers heavenward in hopes that freedom and democracy might everywhere prevail ..."
"... Furthermore, Russia was not alone in its meddling. The United States has been equally guilty. When "the Ukrainian people took to the streets," as Farkas puts it, the State Department and CIA were behind the scenes vigorously pulling strings. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland believed it was incumbent upon the United States to decide who should govern Ukraine. ("Yats is the guy," she said on a leaked call). Nuland would brook no interference from allies slow to follow Washington's lead. ("F–k the EU," she told the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.) ..."
"... That Ukraine is, as Farkas correctly states, a torn country, did not give Nuland pause. Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers have assigned to themselves a magical ability to repair such tears and to make broken countries whole. The results of their labors are amply on display everywhere from Somalia and Haiti to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now add Ukraine to that sorry list. ..."
"... Even so, can't we at least assume Nuland's motives were morally superior to Putin's? After all, President Putin is clearly a thug whereas Nuland is an estimable product of the American foreign policy establishment. She's married to Robert Kagan, for heaven's sake. ..."
"... This is why we should disband politically oriented NGO's. In essence, a country is only a democracy if it is pro-U.S. Resistance is futile. Meddling at this level will only bring about more conflict, instability and military obligations will follow. It is good to be king but it is also quite expensive and ultimately ruinous. ..."
"... Imperialism rules other peoples against their will, necessitating for its survival the lessening of democratic accountability at home, too, since it lessens the importance of citizens' own concerns, also requiring for its warmaking security keeping voters in the dark. ..."
"... Make that, More 'Fake News,' Of Course From the New York Times. Saturated with Fake News of various manifestations, the NY Times and its rancid analog Washington Post on the other end of the Crony-Elite NY-DC axis are unreadable. ..."
"... Given a ham-fisted EU run by Elite hacks in Brussels that is white washing Europe's Christian legacy, mandating overbearing economic and social controls and absorbing millions of net negative migrants, the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and Balts seem to be having second thoughts. BTW, The Russians will not and do not want to invade those countries. As the EU spins out of control and the One Belt One Road initiative develops, Russia only needs to ask them what direction they want to face in the future. ..."
"... So, having said that, on foreign policy they, all newspapers and the vast majority of magazines, are war-peddling neo-con supporters. ..."
"... Do not buy any major newspaper. Let them wither away and, it wasn't fake spun 'news' we have been getting only this year: fake agenda driven bull has been going on for decades. Go to the internet and overseas for news think what I said over and you will see ..."
"... All this social, economic and political mess is the result of deregulation in the economic, social, political spheres. The effects of those deregulations are now quite obvious in: economy, society, morality and politics that are already corrupted to the core, but the corruption is not stopping there, it is consuming everything else on its way. There is no end to it, and what is even more surprising is that people want even more of all kinds of deregulations etc. ..."
"... Wouldn't it be more logical to bring back responsibility, moral standards and decency to politics, society and economy etc? What I now see in media is the total lack of any ideas on how to correct the obvious, but instead everybody is spinning his/her lies to make them more believable to the yet unconverted. This is pure relativism and sophistry and it destroys not only the USA, but the West as well. ..."
"... If an opinion piece in NYT or other MSM blatantly distorts the facts, then it belongs to the category of "fake news." Which should probably be called "malicious rumors." So the defense of some commenters that you can blatantly lie in opinion pieces (the right NYT exercised to the full extent in this particular example and for which Bacevich criticized them) is wrong. Anti-Russian witch hunt in NYT and other MSM destroys the credibility of the USA version of neoliberalism as well as the USA foreign policy. Along with Trump election, I view it as a symptom of the crisis of neoliberalism for which the US elite is unable to find a more suitable answer than scapegoating. Also the fact that Nuland is married to neocon warmonger Kagan is a material fact. ..."
Disregarding President Trump's insistent claim that the establishment press propagates "fake
news" requires a constant effort -- especially when a prestigious outlet like the New York
Times allows itself to be used for blatantly fraudulent purposes.
I cherish the First Amendment. Mark me down as favoring journalism that is loud, lively, and
confrontational. When members of the media snooze -- falling for fictitious claims about
Saddam's WMD program or Gaddafi's genocidal intentions, for example -- we all lose.
So the recent decision by Times editors to
publish an op-ed regarding Paul Manafort's involvement in Ukraine is disturbing. That the
Times is keen to bring down Donald Trump is no doubt the case. Yet if efforts to do so
entail grotesque distortions of U.S. policy before Trump, then we are courting real
trouble. Put simply, ousting Trump should not come at the cost of whitewashing the follies that
contributed to Trump's rise in the first place.
The offending Times op-ed, the handiwork of Evelyn N. Farkas, appears under the title
"With Manafort, It Really Is About Russia, Not Ukraine." During the Obama administration,
Farkas served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia, and Mess
Kit Repair. Okay, I added that last bit, but it does seem like quite an expansive charter for a
mere deputy assistant secretary.
The story Farkas tells goes like this.
First, from the moment it achieved independence in 1991, Ukraine was a divided nation, "torn
between Western Europe and Russia." Ukrainians in the country's western precincts wanted to
join the European Union and NATO. Those further to east "oriented themselves toward Russia,
which exerted maximum influence to keep Ukraine closely aligned." In one camp were enlightened
Ukrainians. In the other camp, the unenlightened.
Second, Manafort's involvement in this intra-Ukrainian dispute was -- shockingly -- never
about "advanc[ing] the interests of democracy, Western Europe or the United States." Manafort's
motives were strictly venal. In what Farkas describes as a "standoff between democracy and
autocracy," he threw in with the autocrats, thereby raking in millions.
Third, Manafort's efforts mattered bigly. In 2010, he helped Victor F. Yanukovych become
president of Ukraine. An unquestionably nasty piece of work, Yanukovych was, according to
Farkas, "Putin's man in Kiev." Yet like it or not, he came to power as the result of democratic
election. In 2013, Yanukovych opted against joining the EU, which along with NATO, had, in
Farkas's words, "experienced a burst of membership expansion" right up to Russia's own
borders.
In response to Yanukovych's action, "the Ukrainian people," that is, the enlightened
ones, "took to the streets," forcing him to flee the country. Rather than bowing to the
expressed will of the people, however, Russia's Vladimir Putin "instigated a separatist
movement" in eastern Ukraine, thereby triggering "a war between Russia and Ukraine that
continues to this day."
To accept Farkas's account as truthful, one would necessarily conclude that as Manafort
was hijacking history, the United States remained quietly on the sidelines, an innocent
bystander sending prayers heavenward in hopes that freedom and democracy might everywhere
prevail .
Such was hardly the case, however. One need not be a Putin apologist to note that the United
States was itself engaged in a program of instigation, one that ultimately induced a hostile --
but arguably defensive -- Russian response.
In the wake of the Cold War, the EU and NATO did not experience a "burst" of expansion, a
formulation suggesting joyous spontaneity. Rather, with Washington's enthusiastic support, the
West embarked upon a deliberate eastward march at the Kremlin's expense, an undertaking made
possible by (and intended to exploit) Russia's weakened state. In football, it's called piling
on.
That this project worked to the benefit of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, the Baltic Republics,
and others is very much the case. On that score, it is to be applauded.
That at some point a resentful Russia would push back was all but certain. Indeed, more than
a few Western observers had warned against such a response.
The proposed incorporation of Ukraine into NATO brought matters to a head. For Putin, this
was an unacceptable prospect. He acted as would any U.S. president contemplating the absorption
of a near neighbor into hostile bloc of nations. Indeed, he acted much as had Dwight D.
Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy when they assessed the implications of Cuba joining the Soviet
bloc.
That doesn't justify or excuse Putin's meddling in Ukraine. Yet it suggests an explanation
for Russian behavior other than the bitterness of an ex-KGB colonel still with his shorts in a
knot over losing the Cold War. Russia has an obvious and compelling interest in who controls
Ukraine, even if few in Washington or in the editorial offices of the New York Times
will acknowledge that reality.
Furthermore, Russia was not alone in its meddling. The United States has been equally
guilty. When "the Ukrainian people took to the streets," as Farkas puts it, the State
Department and CIA were behind the scenes vigorously pulling strings. Assistant Secretary of
State Victoria Nuland believed it was incumbent upon the United States to decide who should
govern Ukraine. ("Yats is the guy," she said on a leaked call). Nuland would brook no
interference from allies slow to follow Washington's lead. ("F–k the EU," she told the
U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.)
That Ukraine is, as Farkas correctly states, a torn country, did not give Nuland pause.
Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers have assigned to themselves a magical ability
to repair such tears and to make broken countries whole. The results of their labors are amply
on display everywhere from Somalia and Haiti to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now add Ukraine
to that sorry list.
Even so, can't we at least assume Nuland's motives were morally superior to Putin's?
After all, President Putin is clearly a thug whereas Nuland is an estimable product of the
American foreign policy establishment. She's married to Robert Kagan, for heaven's
sake.
Persuade yourself that the United States is all about democracy promotion, as Farkas appears
to believe, and the answer to that question is clearly yes. Alas, the record of American
statecraft stretching over decades provides an abundance of contrary evidence. In practice, the
United States supports democracy only when it finds it convenient to do so. Should
circumstances require, it unhesitatingly befriends despots, especially rich ones that pay cash
while purchasing American weaponry.
Yanukovych was Putin's man, "and therefore, indirectly, so was Mr. Manafort," Farkas
concludes. All that now remains is to determine "the extent to which Mr. Manafort was Putin's
man in Washington." For Farkas, the self-evident answer to that question cannot come too
soon.
As to whether Russia -- or any other great power -- might have legitimate security interests
that the United States would do well to respect, that's not a matter worth bothering about.
Thus does the imperative of ousting Trump eclipse the need to confront the pretensions and the
hubris that helped make Trump possible.
Andrew Bacevich is writer-at-large at The American Conservative
This is why the term "fake news" is so harmful and should not be used by media outlets. The
use of "bad journalism" would be much more useful as it forces the claimants to justify their
reasons for doing so.
"Fake news" is just a dog whistle.
Has it not occurred to the foreign policy establishment in Washington that it is more in
America's national interests for Ukraine to remain in Moscow's orbit, so as to strengthen
U.S.-Russian relations, not exacerbate tensions, rather than to pull them into the EU, or,
God forbid, NATO? Isn't this what any of the seasoned experts at Foggy Bottom would tell you?
Why aren't they doing so?
1) Yanukovich won in 2004 as well and the election results were hijacked by 'Maidan'
2) Yanukovich wasn't Putin man back in 2010. As a matter of fact, he and his party actively
promoted EU integration deal, until they read its actual conditions. After that they
backtracked and rushed to Putin for a support.
So it was classical case of sitting on two chairs simultaneously.
Completely agree with John Fargo. "Fake News" should be reserved for deliberate falsehoods
published knowingly. This NYT op-ed amounts to "an interpretation of history Bacevich doesn't
agree with." I may not agree with it either – but it's not like claiming that the Vegas
shooter was anti-Trump, or creating a Facebook account for a non-existent person or
organization.
Mr Fargo: Disagree. "Bad journalism" implies the author is lazy yet innocent in their way.
"Fake news" is more about narrative control and manipulation of the reader through
reinvention or exaggeration, et cetera. Calling articles and outlets fake news is more
accurate and levies much more weight against the lies and deceit than simply accusing someone
or thing of bad journalism.
This is why we should disband politically oriented NGO's. In essence, a country is only a
democracy if it is pro-U.S. Resistance is futile. Meddling at this level will only bring about more conflict, instability and military
obligations will follow. It is good to be king but it is also quite expensive and ultimately
ruinous.
If it were all about democracy promotion, they wouldn't also be so anxious to negate an
election here at home. Imperialism rules other peoples against their will, necessitating for
its survival the lessening of democratic accountability at home, too, since it lessens the
importance of citizens' own concerns, also requiring for its warmaking security keeping
voters in the dark.
Re: "More 'Fake News,' Alas, From the New York Times"
Make that, More 'Fake News,' Of Course From the New York Times. Saturated with Fake News of various manifestations, the NY Times and its rancid analog
Washington Post on the other end of the Crony-Elite NY-DC axis are unreadable.
Re: "That this project worked to the benefit of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, the Baltic
Republics, and others is very much the case. On that score, it is to be applauded."
Given a ham-fisted EU run by Elite hacks in Brussels that is white washing Europe's
Christian legacy, mandating overbearing economic and social controls and absorbing millions
of net negative migrants, the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and Balts seem to be having second
thoughts. BTW, The Russians will not and do not want to invade those countries. As the EU spins out
of control and the One Belt One Road initiative develops, Russia only needs to ask them what
direction they want to face in the future.
How is it someone's "opinion" constitutes "fake News"? Trump did not win by policy issues, he
rode the right-wing outrage at all things clinton/libtard better than anyone else. His policy
positions were mostly promise everything to everyone, but his campaign was about Lock her up/
build the wall! After bashing Goldman Sachs during the election, once he won he promptly
filled his cabinet with them and other mega donor types.
@John Fargo – I'm in almost complete sympathy with Mr. Bacevich's essay, but you make
an excellent point. "Bad journalism" is the better term. In fact, the only criticism I can
make of your statement is that "dog whistle" is the wrong term. Everyone associates the term
"fake news" with Donald Trump. (If it were possible, he no doubt would have trademarked it.)
Using the term alienates the very people who need to hear criticisms like those in Mr.
Bacevich's essay. They hear it, too; and upon hearing it, they stop listening.
Look, elite and non-elite self-delusion about the purity of U.S. motives abroad dates back to
the Roosevelt administration at least -- and I mean the Teddy Roosevelt administration. I
don't see how any of this amounts to a defense of charges of money-laundering against
Manafort.
I disagree with John Fargo. The news that NYT, Washington Post, and other media outlets (not
only liberal ) "produce" is the "Fake News". "Bad journalism" should be reserved and used in
the sense Nolan explains. Besides the "Fake News" on the so called "left" in American
politics in general is the problem of "double speak" and speaking with the "forked tongues".
American "right" is the camp of the white flag.
Besides the "Fake News" on the so called "left" in American politics in general is the
problem of "double speak" and speaking with the "forked tongues". American "right" is the
camp of the white flag.
I've mentioned the various "flavors" of Fake News before. There is (1) the obvious –
what is claimed as true is actually false. But also (2), what is claimed as important,
actually isn't. And (3) what is important, is weakly or not reported at all.
An example of Type 2 is the WaPost reporting on its front page before the 2016 that Jared
Kushner may have been greased into the Harvard MBA program. As if Ivy League greasing by
monied Elites is unheard of. How was that front page news? And how about the acceptances of
Chelsea Clinton (Stanford) and Malia Obama (Harvard)?
The cases of Type 3 Fake News are much more egregious. For example, the reasoned arguments
and analysis by retired American intelligence officers and academics that the Syrian forces
"chemical weapon attack" in April was almost certainly a false flag with staged recovery
activity.
The NY Times and WaPost have consistently refused to acknowledge that those arguments and
analysis even exist.
The linking of Russia to the DNC email leaks as factual by the Times, Post and NPR without
a scintilla of published hard evidence is another example.
There are many more examples of Type 3 Fake News that could be demonstrated. Much of what
claims to be journalism by the MSM is now Fake News trash.
Disregarding President Trump's insistent claim that the establishment press propagates
"fake news" requires a constant effort -- especially when a prestigious outlet like the New
York Times allows itself to be used for blatantly fraudulent purposes.
I agree in principal, although I note that President Trump and his team are as guilty of
fake news as anyone, and the president himself appears to be positively delusional. I might
at times disagree with Bacevich as to which news is fake.
I would also agree that there has been a great deal of "fake news" out of Ukraine, and
what is really going on their is a former SSR with a bitterly divided population that each
has about equal numbers, proponderance in some territories compared to others, and equally
opportunistic leadership showing no great commitment to anything recognizable as
"democracy."
Say, can we refrain from using the word 'journalism' when we refer to the American media?
We should.
The internet and sources overseas, such as the Independent News paper/site out of
Britain,
have news that is not purposely spun as is by the neo-con American news papers and magazines.
Not as much, anyway.
Several points here, for example of what bad news (pun intended) the joke of American media
is:
1- quit calling the main stream media liberal or left. They are liberal in a 'social issues
sense,' that is, to be politically correct.
2- So, having said that, on foreign policy they, all newspapers and the vast majority of
magazines, are war-peddling neo-con supporters.
3-They have agendas.
Do we not remember how they, at the new york times, peddled the war against Iraq and how,
when you look at the editorial page you feel that these people and the guests opinion writers
are soulless people that have no concern for America's 'flyover' country?
4- Yeah, isn't that ironic that these people look down on America's middle class, blue collar
workers and yes, it's troops, by that constant bashing of nations here and there and pushing
for aggressive stands or even military attacks?
Let the people at the major newspapers like this n.y.times rag tell us when they served in
the U.S. military or their when their offspring did or when they're gonna join and volunteer
for combat duty.
Never mind, I've got the answer-none of 'em.
Do not buy any major newspaper.
Let them wither away and, it wasn't fake spun 'news' we have been getting only this year:
fake agenda driven bull has been going on for decades. Go to the internet and overseas for news
think what I said over and you will see
Not everybody has the time to analyze the deluge of all the "Fake News" and categorize it
into classes and/or sub-classes you or somebody else proposes. Where all that leads? Soon we
will have new sociopolitical discipline and experts on "fake-newsology" that will introduce
another layer of pseudo-information that will have to be translated to the uninitiated and
unwashed.
All this social, economic and political mess is the result of deregulation in the
economic, social, political spheres. The effects of those deregulations are now quite obvious
in: economy, society, morality and politics that are already corrupted to the core, but the
corruption is not stopping there, it is consuming everything else on its way. There is no end
to it, and what is even more surprising is that people want even more of all kinds of
deregulations etc.
Wouldn't it be more logical to bring back responsibility, moral standards
and decency to politics, society and economy etc? What I now see in media is the total lack
of any ideas on how to correct the obvious, but instead everybody is spinning his/her lies to
make them more believable to the yet unconverted. This is pure relativism and sophistry and
it destroys not only the USA, but the West as well.
nikbez
If an opinion piece in NYT or other MSM blatantly distorts the facts, then it belongs
to the category of "fake news." Which should probably be called "malicious rumors."
So the defense of some commenters that you can blatantly lie in opinion pieces (the right NYT
exercised to the full extent in this particular example and for which Bacevich criticized
them) is wrong.
Anti-Russian witch hunt in NYT and other MSM destroys the credibility of the USA version of
neoliberalism as well as the USA foreign policy. Along with Trump election, I view it as a
symptom of the crisis of neoliberalism for which the US elite is unable to find a more
suitable answer than scapegoating.
Also the fact that Nuland is married to neocon warmonger Kagan is a material fact.
"... An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey's statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former Secretary of State of having been 'grossly negligent" in handling classified information, new memos to Congress show. ..."
"... "There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information," reads the statement, one of Comey's earliest drafts. ..."
"... Of course, Comey's final statement, while critical of Hillary's email usage, alleged that no prosecutor would pursue charges against actions which he described only as "extremely careless." ..."
"... Meanwhile, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the handling of national defense documents is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison ...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary. ..."
"... ...that said, we're going to go out on a limb and question whether it just might have had something to do with that infamous meeting between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey's boss, that happened just 6 days before Comey made his statement? ..."
The Hill , early drafts of former FBI Director James Comey's statement on Hillary Clinton's email case accused the former Secretary
of State of "gross negligence" in her handling of classified information as opposed to the "extremely careless" phrase that made
its way into the final statement.
As The Hill further points out, the change in language is significant since federal law states that "gross negligence" in handling
the nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines whereas "extreme carelessness" has no such legal definition
and/or ramifications.
An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey's statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former
Secretary of State of having been 'grossly negligent" in handling classified information, new memos to Congress show.
The tough language was changed to the much softer accusation that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified
information when Comey announced in July 2016 there would be no charges against her.
The draft, written weeks before the announcement of no charges, was described by multiple sources who saw the document both before
and after it was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee this past weekend.
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was
grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information," reads the statement, one of Comey's earliest drafts.
Those sources said the draft statement was subsequently changed in red-line edits to conclude that the handling of 110 emails
containing classified information that were transmitted by Clinton and her aides over her insecure personal email server was "extremely
careless."
Of course, Comey's final statement, while critical of Hillary's email usage, alleged that no prosecutor would pursue charges
against actions which he described only as "extremely careless."
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling
of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified
information."
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those
with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
Meanwhile, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the handling of national defense documents
is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison ...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national
defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in
violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally
removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer -- shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Unfortunately, The Hill's sources couldn't confirm the most important detail behind this bombshell new revelation, namely who
made the call to the change the language...
The sources, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said the memos show
that at least three top FBI officials were involved in helping Comey fashion and edit the statement, including Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe, General Counsel James Baker and Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki.
The documents turned over to Congress do not indicate who recommended the key wording changes, the sources said. The Senate Judiciary
Committee is likely to demand the FBI identify who made the changes and why, the sources said.
...that said, we're going to go out on a limb and question whether it just might have had something to do with that infamous
meeting between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey's boss, that happened just 6 days before Comey made his
statement?
The mere presence of a private server that sent/received classified information is THE EVIDENCE that she intended to mishandle
classified information. Jesus H. Christ on a cracker what are these people smoking? That's like saying that just because you were
drunk and decided to drive that you didn't intend to drive drunk.
" ...early drafts of former FBI Director James Comey's statement on Hillary Clinton's email case accused the former Secretary
of State of "gross negligence" in her handling of classified information as opposed to the "extremely careless" phrase that made
its way into the final statement."
Evidence
that goes far beyond Manafort's general shadiness will be needed to fulfill the dreams of those
who imagine President Trump to be some sort of Manchurian Candidate.
The first charges
to be filed in Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian involvement in last year's election
fit a typical pattern: a federal prosecutor in a big political case goes after small fry and
easy targets, slamming them for lying to investigators, even as evidence for the grand
conspiracy he's meant to be investigating remains virtually nonexistent.
The easy target in this instance is Paul
Manafort , who was briefly and rather unsuccessfully Donald Trump's campaign manager in the
stretch between his sealing the nomination and the Republican convention. Manafort's extensive
ties to disreputable foreign governments were already the subject of headlines over eighteen
months ago. In April 2016, when Manafort was a "newly installed senior campaign adviser,"
the Guardian noted that his clients amounted to "a who's who of authoritarian
leaders and scandal-plagued businessmen in Ukraine , Russia, the Philippines and more."
The whiff of corruption that swirls around Manafort was already with him long before he hooked
up with the Trump campaign. (Even so, it's
highly unusual for a someone to be charged, as Manafort has been, with failing to register
as a foreign agent: strict enforcement of the law would send a great many richly compensated
D.C. operators to jail.)
Manafort would be the most brazen spy in the history of humanity if his purpose in the Trump
campaign had been to coordinate with the Kremlin. We do live in extraordinary times, but
evidence that goes far beyond Manafort's general shadiness will be
needed to fulfill the dreams of those who imagine President Trump to be some sort of
Manchurian Candidate. Hiring Manafort was certainly reckless on the part of the Trump campaign,
and in a normal political season that would have been scandal enough. But neither Manafort's
obvious vices nor his questionable competence (the GOP convention came close to succumbing to
revolt) proved to be enough to derail Trump's locomotive to the White House.
The indictments against Manafort and his associate Rick Gates are fodder for partisan
sensationalism, but they do not appear to pose great peril to Trump. Pundits who looked more
closely at Mueller's first moves were more intrigued, however, by what they saw in the case of
the small fry: that is, the case of George Papadopoulous, a low-level foreign-policy adviser to
Trump's campaign. According to documents that Mueller had made public, Papadopoulous has
already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with a certain "professor"
who claimed to have access through Russian sources to "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. (The professor
has been
identified in the press as the Maltese academic Josef Mifsud, based in Scotland at the
University of Sterling.)
Papadopoulos, just twenty-eight years old at the time, came to the Trump campaign after a
stint as an adviser to the Ben Carson campaign during the early contests last year. Trump was
in desperate need of staff -- indeed, people close to the campaign told me even months later,
in July 2016, that it was barely an organized campaign at all -- so Papadopoulos was taken on
and soon named among the campaign's foreign-policy advisers by Trump himself in a March 2016
interview with the Washington Post . Papadopoulos appeared in photos next to important
campaign figures such as Jeff Sessions, and he could have been an influential part of the
campaign himself. But he probably wasn't: the fact that he might appear in a photo with Jeff
Sessions says at least as much about the then Alabama senator's standing as it does about
Papadopoulos. The campaign was not a conventional campaign, and it had only the most shambolic
organizational chart.
Did Mifsud in fact have "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, in the form of pilfered emails obtained
by the Russians? This was the impression he apparently gave Papadopoulos, who passed the tale
to more senior campaign staff and was given permission to continue his contacts with Mifsud.
There was nothing illegal about this: what Papadopoulos has been charged with is not looking
into whether a Maltese academic and his Russian friends -- in particular a young woman
introduced to Papadopoulos as "Putin's niece" -- had Clinton or DNC email; rather, he has been
charged with lying to investigators. Watergate lore would have it that "it's not the crime,
it's the coverup" that brings down high officials implicated in wrongdoing. But in fact,
federal prosecutors and investigators routinely pounce on misstatements and minor falsehoods to
make cases that otherwise would go nowhere. That's standard operating procedure for special
counsels and special prosecutors. Going after the small fry and hitting them with harsh charges
for misstatements that may not otherwise seem terribly serious serves at least two purposes.
Yes, such charges put pressure on what may be the weakest links in a chain leading to proof of
corruption in high office. But they also keep a fishing expedition going by suggesting that if
you can catch a few minnows, maybe you can land Moby-Dick, too. Prosecutors are unavoidably
political figures, and high-stakes investigations of public officials, above all the president,
inevitably have the character of PR campaigns as much as legal proceedings.
Everything we know so far suggests not a passionate love affair between the Trump campaign
and the Kremlin but a series of awkward first dates between amateurs whose espionage
credentials would make Boris and Natasha look like James Jesus Angleton. The Russians did not
lack for motive to screw with America's election and to vex Hillary Clinton in particular. But
nothing indicates that they had effective lines of communication (let alone control) into the
upper echelons of the Trump campaign, to the extent that the Trump campaign was even organized
enough to have echelons. There's something paradoxical in the same pundits who bemoan Donald
Trump's absolute unpredictability and incorrigibility as president also believing that the
Trump campaign and the Kremlin could work together smoothly to subvert American democracy. The
Trump campaign couldn't even work together smoothly with itself, which is one thing Paul
Manafort can prove. Daniel McCarthy is editor at large of The American
Conservative
Talking heads act like Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is fair,
impartial and unbiased. But the facts are a wee bit different ... Failure to Aggressively
Prosecute the BCCI Scandal
The B.C.C.I. scandal involves the laundering of drug money, the illicit financing of
terrorism and of arms to Iraq, the easy purchase of respectability and the corruption of the
world banking system.
For more than a decade, the biggest banking swindle in history worked beautifully. Between
$5 billion and $15 billion was bilked from governments and individual depositors to be put to
the most evil of purposes -- while lawmen and regulators slept.
Now the fight among investigators is coming out into the open. Manhattan District Attorney
Robert Morgenthau, who gave impetus to long-contained probes, told a Senate subcommittee headed
by Senator John Kerry that he is getting no cooperation from the Thornburgh Justice
Department.
Justice's Criminal Division chief, Robert Mueller, tells me he will have a hatchet-burying
session with the independent-minded D.A. next week, and vehemently denies having told British
intelligence to stop cooperating with the Manhattan grand jury.
Mueller's handling of the BCCI scandal as the point man for the Justice Department was
widely criticized. As noted by a Senate report written by Senators
Kerry and Brown:
Over the past two years, the Justice Department's handling of BCCI has been criticized in
numerous editorials in major newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington
Post, and the New York Times, reflecting similar criticism on the part of several Congressmen,
including the chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Kerry; the chief Customs undercover officer
who handled the BCCI drug-money laundering sting, Robert Mazur; his superior at Customs,
Commissioner William von Raab; New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau; former Senate
investigator Jack Blum, and, within the Justice Department itself, the former U.S. Attorney for
the Southern District of Florida, Dexter Lehtinen.
Typical editorials criticized Justice's prosecution of BCCI as "sluggish," "conspicuously
slow," "inattentive," and "lethargic." Several editorials noted that there had been "poor
cooperation" by Justice with other agencies. One stated that "the Justice Department seems to
have been holding up information that should have been passed on" to regulators and others.
Another that "the Justice Department's secretive conduct in dealing with BCCI requires a better
explanation than any so far offered.
***
Under Assistant Attorney General Mueller, the Department assigned nearly three dozen
attorneys to the case. During 1992, the Department brought several indictments, which remained
narrower, less detailed and, at times, seemingly in response to the efforts of District
Attorney Robert Morgenthau of New York, the Federal Reserve, or both
***
Suddenly, on August 22, Dennis Saylor, chief assistant to Assistant Attorney General
Mueller, called Lehtinen and, according to the US Attorney, "indicated to me that I was
directed not to return the indictment."
While the Justice Department's handling of BCCI has received substantial criticism, the
office of Robert Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York, has generally received credit for
breaking open the BCCI investigation.
***
In going after BCCI, Morgenthau's office quickly found that in addition to fighting off the
bank, it would receive resistance from almost every other institution or entity connected to
BCCI , including at various times, BCCI's multitude of prominent and politically well-connected
lawyers, BCCI's accountants, BCCI's shareholders, the Bank of England, the British Serious
Fraud Office, and the U.S. Department of Justice
Squashing Warning Signs that May Have
Stopped 9/11
Robert Mueller first hit my radar ... just months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the
World Trade Center.
***
I came to meet and later represent FBI Special Agents Robert Wright and John Vincent, of the
agency's Chicago Counter-Terrorism Field Office. During our meeting, both Special Agents Wright
and Vincent revealed to me that they had been conducting a counterterrorism investigation of
Saudi money laundering into and in the United States, and they both believed that a massive
terrorist attack was imminent.
In the course of this investigation, both special agents had asked a fellow FBI agent who
was undercover, one of Muslim descent, to be wired to turn up further evidence of this
terrorist operation. The Muslim agent refused, indignantly telling both Wright and Vincent that
Muslims don't spy and rat on other Muslims. In shock, my soon-to-be clients reported this to
their supervisors at the FBI, but no action was taken. To make matters worse, Wright's and
Vincent's FBI supervisors quashed their investigation. They both believed that the order to
kill the investigation came from the highest reaches of the FBI, and, upset it not outraged by
this cover-up, Wright then decided to write a book detailing this breach of FBI honor.
The only way I could explain this cover-up was that then-FBI Director Robert Mueller was
sensitive to the ties between the family of President George W. Bush and the Saudi royal
family.
***
Director Mueller, along with his "yes men" supervisors at the agency, not only quashed my
clients' investigation and ignored the disloyalty of the Muslim undercover agent, but then
missed the warning signs leading up to September 11 – the biggest intelligence failure in
American history, even surpassing Pearl Harbor.
But shamelessly, despite this historic intelligence failure and the World Trade Center
terrorist attacks that ensued, Mueller later led an effort to drum both Special Agents Wright
and Vincent out of the FBI, in part by attempting to remove their security clearances, as a
"reward" for their candor.
The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no
warning [about 9/11] etc., and that was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and
intelligence coming in.
Mueller was one of the people who dropped the ball and let 9/11 happen.
Allowing
Escape of Saudi Persons Connected to Bin Laden
Right after 9/11, American airspace was closed down. Yet Mueller was one of the people who
allowed relatives of Bin Laden
and other persons of interest fly back to Saudi Arabia.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the " post 9/11 round-up " of about 1,000
immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong
time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially
P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to
supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently,
some of the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that
none turned out to be terrorists .
TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a " bombshell memo " to the
Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's having so
misled everyone after 9/11.
In addition, Rowley
says that the FBI sent Soviet-style "minders" to her interviews with the Joint Intelligence
Committee investigation of 9/11, to make sure that she didn't say anything the FBI didn't like.
The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11
confirmed that government "minders" obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating
witnesses (and see
this ).
Mueller's FBI also obstructed the 9/11 investigation in many other ways. For example, an FBI
informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for
the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a
room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the
FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location. See this and
this .
Bob Graham, the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told me recently that
Robert Mueller, then the FBI director (and now the special counsel investigating connections
between Russia and the Trump campaign) made "the strongest objections" to Jacobson and his
colleagues visiting San Diego.
Graham and his team defied Mueller's efforts, and Jacobson flew west. There he discovered
that his hunch was correct. The FBI files in California were replete with extraordinary and
damning details
***
Nevertheless, Mueller adamantly refused their demands to interview him, even when backed by
a congressional subpoena, and removed Shaikh to an undisclosed location 'for his own
safety.'
Graham also wrote
that the FBI also "insisted that we could not, even in the most sanitized manner, tell the
American people that an FBI informant had a relationship with two of the hijackers."
And Kristen Breitweiser - one of the four 9/11 widows instrumental in forcing the government
to form the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 2001 attacks - points out :
Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information
specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there
was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi
evidence out of the Inquiry's investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they
succeeded in their effort.
When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other
directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the
intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. For instance, in the case of the FBI, they
actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta,
had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept
quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the
time, James Comey.
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own
agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such
torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all"
surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked
to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.
Anthrax
Frame-Up
Mueller also presided over the incredibly flawed anthrax investigation.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office says the FBI's investigation was
"flawed and inaccurate" . The investigation was so bogus that a senator
called for an "independent review and assessment of how the FBI handled its investigation
in the anthrax case."
The head of the FBI's anthrax investigation says the
whole thing was a sham . He says
that the FBI higher-ups "greatly obstructed and impeded the investigation", that there were
"politically motivated communication embargoes from FBI Headquarters".
The FBI's anthrax investigation head said
that the FBI framed scientist Bruce Ivins. On July 6, 2006, he filed a whistleblower report of
mismanagement to the FBI's Deputy Director pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section
2303, which noted:
(j) the FBI's fingering of Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer ; and, (k) the FBI's subsequent
efforts to railroad the prosecution of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory evidence
Following the announcement of its circumstantial case against Ivins, Defendants DOJ and FBI
crafted an elaborate perception management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins' guilt
. These efforts included press conferences and highly selective evidentiary presentations which
were replete with material omissions
In other words, Mueller presided over the attempt to frame an
innocent man (and
see this ).
Unsure If Government Can Assassinate U.S. Citizens Living On U.S.
Soil
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley
commented at the time:
One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his
responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.
***
He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very
least, was unwilling to discuss that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy:
"Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution."
Crippled Investigations of
Financial Fraud ... Helping to Allow the Great Recession
In a 2013 piece entitled " Mueller: I Crippled FBI Effort v. White-Collar Crime ", the
country's top white collar crime expert, William Black – who put over 1,000 top S&L
executives in jail for fraud, and is a professor of law and economics at the University of
Missouri - wrote
:
The FBI never developed "an intelligence operation" "to analyze threats" of even epidemic
fraud.
***
White-collar crime investigations and prosecutions are massive money makers that reduce the
deficit, but Mueller , Holder, and Obama refuse to make these points and refuse to prosecute
the elite bank fraudsters. On substantive and political grounds their actions are either
inexplicable or all too explicable and support my readers' belief that the FBI leadership no
longer wants to investigate and prosecute the elite bank frauds.
After the Great Depression, the government cracked down on Wall Street fraud . But
Mueller and other Bush and Obama administration officials let it slide
(There are a lot of people more responsible for the Great Recession - and for lack of
reform afterwards - than Mueller. For example, Mueller's boss (the FBI is a part of the
Department of Justice) made it more or less
official policy not to prosecute financial fraud. But this is another example of
Mueller dropping the ball.
NBC News has learned that under the post-9/11 Patriot Act, the government has been
collecting records on every phone call made in the U.S.
On March 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary
Committee:
We have put in place technological improvements relating to the capabilities of a
database to pull together past emails and future ones as they come in so that it does not
require an individualized search
Remember, the FBI - unlike the CIA - deals with internal matters within the borders of
the United States.
BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the
phone fcompanies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a
conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she
tells them?
CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security
investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation . It's not
necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help
lead the ainvestigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that
out.
BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is
incredible.
CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak
whether we know it or like it or not ."
The next day, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and
she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added
expressly that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored
Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals
finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands
of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens,
and for
infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating
"terrorism."
Mueller was chosen as
Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful
want him to do.
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak
out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he
didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."
I'm still pissed at how Sessions has handled this since taking the AG spot. What this
all comes to is Jeff Sessions is either
1) a fucking idiot or
2) joined the Trump train initially to sabatoge Trump, or
3) was bought off or blackmailed after Trump named him AG.
Sessions did not serve this country by recusing himself and paving the way for Mueller
to run a black ops on the Trump administration. Plus, Sessions just looks like a fucking
wimp.
Maybe Trump has skeletons, but Russia is not one of them. Trump would do well to fire
Sessions and the next 50 ranking FBI/Justice people and start over.
Wow. I hear he also invented cancer and ebola, personally raped all the Sabine women,
and tipped Atlantis into the sea. He personally invaded Iraq, tortured civilians, and
flew the Ben Laden family home from the States after 9-11 on his private jet (which he
stole from an orphanage for abused white christians).
Poor Bush Jr., Obama, and Trump. Powerless against such an evil man as Mueller. I
guess this was all secret information up until now or Trump would have raised these
points when Mueller was appointed special counsel.
Mueller was a soldier in Vietnam Nam in combat for a few months only though fighting
bravely for those few months; however he was soon removed from combat and given a desk
job as personal aide to a General Jones, a brother of the later Obama national security
advisor.
Note that Mueller was FBI Director for both Obama and Bush. Comey took over FBI AFTER
the Benghazi scandal.
Cheers, thats pretty much what I gleaned from Wiki. Its a rare honour indicating
exceptional courage so I wondered if there was a good story behind it.
Wiki also mentions him presiding over the (ultimately controversial) conviction of
Abdelbaset al Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing - not sure if that can be blamed on the
FBI or the all too easily led Scotch though.
The agencies that are supposed to represent the people and enforce the law have
morphed into political tools for the Democrats. How are you going to get an agency like
the FBI to investigate the Clintons when they are in on the scam?
A score of senior and rank and file agents should have gone to prison for burning all
those women and children to death in Waco. The Clinton Administration gave those agents a
pass, and in the process the Clintons purchased the undying support of the agency. When
the very tool you would use to bring down a criminal enterprise has been coopted by that
enterprise, you better tread softly.
I am beginning to understand that we are at a tipping point. People are beginning to
grasp the import of agency lies about the assassination of President Kennedy. It is clear
now that the lies were not told to protect the public.
They were told so that the coconspirators could perfect their coup. Once the coup was
completed successive generations of politicians were given the message. That message was
simple. We the shadow government can kill anybody we choose. Look what we did to Kennedy.
You either toe the line or you will send in the cleaners. Those that would not kao tau to
shadow rulers got to meet their John Hinckley or died under suspicious circumstances in
some West Texas ranch.
( Doesn't matter the Criminal alphabet Agencies, the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous
Seditious Psychopaths at the CIA have decades & Trillions invested over the decades
planting "Agent Smiths" in all of them Pentagram MIC included.)
People are beginning to understand that they have been herded by acts of terrorism
conducted by their own state. The scenario of the lone shooter with spectacular
marksmanship and fantastic kill rates has lost its credibility. Just another in a lone,
long line of "book depository"False Flags.
Trump full well understands that he is in mortal combat with a sinister and entrenched
oligarchy. This is not their first rodeo and they are extremely dangerous. He has to be
sure of his footing before he takes his next step. By the grace of God, he may just very
well be able to pull back the curtain and expose these monsters.
If they manage to kill him, buckle up because any agency with federal in its title
will have lost any claim to legitimacy. The oligarchs tried to steal the election and
that failed. If they steal the election by killing the President, what follows next is a
turkey shoot.
Dec. 10, 2015: Flynn dines with Vladimir Putin at RT gala in Moscow
Flynn accepts $33,750 to speak about U.S. foreign policy at a conference in Moscow,
where he also sat beside Russian President Vladimir Putin at a gala for the
Kremlin-influenced RT (formerly Russia Today). (
Politico ,
Wall Street Journal
But don't forget the collusion with the Whitey Bulger Gang, allowing Bulger to get
away with his crimes, while prosecuting four innocent men instead, who were later
exonerated and court awarded $105 million from the Feds! (When Mueller was acting US
Attorney in Boston.)
Also, there's that background on Mueller regarding his being the grandnephew of
Richard Bissell (by marriage), fired deputy director of the CIA under JFK. And his family
fortune is connected to the Rockefellers (family name: Truesdale).
Lotsa stuff about Mueller, lotsa stuff . . .
(And when they were involved in exonerating those four innocent males sent to the
penitentiary, Mueller wrote letters urging them to continue to keep them
incarcerated!)
Well, that proved to be more of the government's deceit towards the people today, when
Redoubt News was the only credential-carrying news source that was denied entry as media.
Redoubt News was barred from the official priority media seating, however, all other
alternative media outlets were allowed entry.
~~~~
They can refuse to recognize Redoubt News, but we are going to keep reporting what
happens in the courtroom.
30-40 years ago, and beyond....to live past 70 was an event. Modern medicine is
keeping these fucks alive into their 80s+ 90s...and it's too much. Look at the Supreme
Court...Congress, the Fed... These fucks are way, way too entrenched. There seriously
needs to be term limits or an expiration date. Everywhere I look...it's senile old,
entrenched fucks running the cabal.
Am I wrong?
Quite literally...what is keeping Hillary, McCain, Pelosi, Ginsberg, et al..alive?
Mueller has steadfastly tried to ignore or downplay (through carefully worded leaks)
the 2010 bribery investigation surrounding the Uranium One deal which Mueller oversaw as
the then FBI Director with Rod Rosenstein as the US Attorney supervising the
investigation. Then in 2017 Rosenstein, now the Deputy Attorney General and acting
Attorney General for the Russia investigations, appoints Mueller as Special Counsel over
the investigation. ( Recall that Attorney General Jeff Session recused himself from the
Russian investigation over having had conversations at a dinner reception and in a Senate
office meeting with the Russian ambassador when he was a senior member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee.) Also curious is that Mueller's appointment by Rosenstein came
on the heels of Mueller's failed attempt to be rehired as the FBI chief following
Rosenstein's review of Comey's employment and Rosenstein's recommendation that Comey be
fired.
Now that Muller is handing out indictments it's time to try and trash him. If he had
nothing you would just be laughing at him. It's all starting to come down for Trump now.
Bitch on little Trumpsters.
Dream on, DNC troll. Donny let Mueller investigate because he knows there is nothing
to find, and nothing has been found. But investigate hundreds of political operatives and
some dirt can always be found on a few of them. The dems are more pathetic than I
realized if they think there is any meat on the bare bones Mueller tossed them.
With all due respect George Washington, Aren't you supposed to be the American
Standard for Truth telling. The 911 BS in your article is a bold face lie. The Chicago
agents were on a classic "Agency/Company" diversionary trail which was intentionally used
as part of the 911 Commission's head fake to explain how the official version accounted
for the lost opportunities to prevent the licensed goat herders from hijacking 4
commercial jets and flying them far beyond the limits they were engineered, let alone all
the Laws of Physic's that were suspended on 911. Stay out of our cherry orchid. All the
same...Fuck Mueller..he is as Anti-American as our first Alien/Muslim President.
I always enjoy when someone criticizes me for not hitting the truth regarding 9/11
hard enough!
As I've explained for 10 years, I know 9/11 was an inside job. I write some posts
saying that, and others for different audiences criticizing the government's negligence
in letting 9/11 happen.
They are not inconsistent positions ... because there are multiple layers to the
onion. Some responsible only knew one little part, not the big picture. Others really
were just negligent. Some knew exactly what was going down.
It's not either or ... it's both.
Does that make sense?
Moreover, it's not inside job by rogue elements of US gov/intelligence/defense
contractors versus Saudis and/or perhaps Israelis.
I've said for 10 years that one might have subcontracted parts to the other.
And believe it or not, he was around when Fast & Furious got cranked up, before
the reins of the Bureau of Matters (lol) got handed over to Comey.
"In a lengthy
letter directed to FBI Director Robert Mueller , Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) pointed to inconsistencies in reports of how many weapons and
suspects were involved, as well as their current whereabouts. The letter refers to
evidence indicating there may have been five suspects in the group that shot Brian Terry,
and as
many as five rifles ."
George missed the Mueller/Iraq War money shot. Here's a 24 second video that tells us
a lot about how poorly Mueller has "investigated" in the past. He wasn't interested in
the truth back then:
The real question is so much Russian influence as the US intelligence agencies influence on 2016 presidential elections. Brennan
in particular. He bet of Hillary Clinton and lost. After that he was instrumental in launching "color revolution" against Trump. In
which the the critical step was to appoint "special prosecutor".
Notable quotes:
"... But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier compiled
by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working
on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with
any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of intelligence
reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting contained in the
Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are real concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely
reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the
British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources were also utilized by Steele. ..."
"... An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less than
truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community in July
of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called Gang of Eight who served
as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017 Russian ICA. ..."
"... Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream
media primetime. ..."
"... The political law practice of Perkins Coie was started in 1981 under the leadership of Bob Bauer , who went on to become the
White House Counsel to President Barack Obama. Today, the practice is headed by Marc Elias , who has been described as "the Democrats'
go-to attorney an indispensable figure in the party." Elias oversees the work of 18 attorneys representing nearly every Democratic senator,
as well as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and Hillary for America, which oversaw the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion
to Russia. ..."
"... When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and, again
with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach through an
exclusive to the Washington Pos t ..."
"... According to the Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep
inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and
discredit the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from
this briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials
with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told the New York Times . The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured
Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives -- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton,
and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump." ..."
"... The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery?
If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. ..."
"... My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign
governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note,
by the way, the absence of any reference to George Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych. ..."
"... But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia, Iran, and Syria.
As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism can only complain
about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us. ..."
"... Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is made
up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians, full stop
(cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double standard?
..."
"... We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to believe
that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients. ..."
"... What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is of the
past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration. ..."
"... I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't.
The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would allow
them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things to get it
past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him in the election.
It is really that simple of a story. ..."
"... Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate
if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier relied
on collaboration with Russian officials. ..."
"... In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates
the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime
Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama administration
covering up lawlessness. ..."
"... Why didn't the FBI insist on examining the DNC servers? Something's not right. ..."
"... I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental. Clinton is not in Putin's
pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's pocket -- he has neocons and others
working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis.
..."
"... The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other.
They have them both in their pocket. ..."
"... As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted
to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs a
"bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power. ..."
The Democratic Law Firm Behind the Russian Collusion Narrative How a high-powered practice contracted oppo-research
on Trump -- and then pushed a hack story.
Credit: Shutterstock/ Mark Van Scyoc The ongoing investigation
headed by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller into alleged collusion between the campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russian
government has moved into a new phase, with a focus on
purported money laundering. On Monday,
indictments were filed against
former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates.
But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier
compiled by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was
bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National
Committee (DNC).
The current controversy isn't so much over the contents of the dossier -- despite some of the reporting, none of the relevant
claims contained within have been verified. Rather, the issue in question is how opposition research derived from foreign intelligence
sources and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC ended up influencing the decision to prepare the January 2017
Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) into alleged
Russian interference in the 2016 election, the contents of that assessment, and the subsequent investigations by the U.S. Congress
and a special prosecutor.
The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with
any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of
intelligence reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting
contained in the Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are
real
concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via
liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources
were also utilized by Steele.
According to Robert Litt , who served as general counsel
to former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, this mirroring was nothing more than coincidence. "The dossier itself,"
Litt wrote in a recent Lawfare blog , "played
absolutely no role in the coordinated intelligence assessment that Russia interfered in our election. That assessment, which was
released in unclassified form in January but which contained much more detail in the classified version that has been briefed to
Congress, was based entirely on other sources and analysis."
Moreover, Litt noted, the decision in December 2016 to brief President-elect Trump on the existence of the Steele Dossier and
provide him with a two-page summary of that document, was not a reflection that "the Intelligence Community had relied on it in any
way, or even made any determination that the information it contained was reliable and accurate." It was rather, Litt said, a need
to share with Trump the fact that the document existed and was being passed around Congress and the media.
An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less
than truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community
in July of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called
Gang of Eight who served as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017
Russian ICA.
Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream
media primetime.
It was in the latter two roles that Elias, acting on behalf of his clients, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington, D.C.-based company
that, according to its website , "provides premium research, strategic intelligence,
and due diligence services." Fusion GPS had previously been contracted by the
Washington Free Beacon "to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary." However, when it became clear that Trump
was going to secure the Republican Party nomination, the contract with Fusion GPS was terminated. According to
a letter sent by Perkins Coie to Fusion
GPS sometime in March 2016, Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, met with Elias and lobbied for the job of conducting
opposition research on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In April 2016, Simpson's company was retained by the firm through the end
of the election cycle.
Perkins Coie is also home to Michael
Sussman , a partner in the firm's Privacy and Data Security Practice, who was retained by the DNC to respond to the cyber-penetration
of their server in the spring of 2016. When, in late April 2016, the DNC discovered that its servers had been breached, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz,
then chairwoman of the DNC, turned to Perkins Coie and Sussman for help. Sussman chaired the meetings at the DNC regarding the breach,
and, on May 4, 2016,
he reached out to Shawn Henry , a former FBI agent who headed the incident response unit for the private cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike,
for assistance in mitigating the fallout from the breach. According to CrowdStrike, it was immediately able to detect the presence
of hostile malware that it identified as Russian in origin. Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the
FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion to Russia.
When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and,
again with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach
through
an exclusive to the Washington Pos t , which was published in concert with a dramatic CrowdStrike technical report
detailing the intrusion, ominously named
"Bears in the Midst."
This public relations campaign started the media frenzy over the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC server, enabling every facet
of the story that followed to be painted with a Russian brush -- normally with
a spokesperson from either
the DNC or Hillary for America taking the lead in promulgating the story.
It was about this same time that Elias decided to expand the scope of Fusion GPS's opposition research against Trump, going beyond
the simple mining of open-source information that had been the hallmark of the firm's work up until that time, and instead delving
into the active collection of information using methodologies more akin to the work of spy agencies. The person
Fusion GPS turned to for this task was Steele
Key persons within the Clinton campaign and the DNC denied any knowledge of either the decision by Perkins Coie to hire Fusion
GPS for the purpose of gathering opposition research, or to tap Steele to conduct this task. Elias reportedly made use of money already
paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions for deniability on the
part of his clients. This decision meant that Perkins Coie, as a firm, had ownership of the Steele Dossier; expenditures of firm
assets require the approval of either the
management or executive committee
of the firm (Elias sits on the executive committee).
But as far as intelligence products go, the Steele Dossier is as sketchy as it gets. It's an amalgam of poorly written "reports"
cobbled together from what
Vanity Fair called "angry émigrés," "wheeling and dealing oligarchs," and "political dissidents with well-honed axes
to grind." These are precisely the kind of sources intelligence professionals operating in Russia in the early 1990s -- Steele was
assigned to Moscow from 1990 to 1993 -- would have had access to. Such sources also produce information that professional analysts
normally treat with more than a modicum of skepticism when preparing national-level intelligence products.
The very first report produced by Steele, dated June 20, 2016, was chock full of the kind of salacious details justifying its
explosive title, "Republican Candidate Donald Trump's Activities in Russia and Compromising Relationship with the Kremlin." The substantive
charges leveled in the report centered on three unnamed sources -- a senior Foreign Ministry official, a former top-level Russian
intelligence officer, and a senior Russian financial official -- whom Steele accessed through a "trusted compatriot." The report
alleged that Russia had been feeding the Trump campaign "valuable intelligence" on Clinton, and that this effort was supported and
directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. A second report, dated June 26, 2016, focused exclusively on "Russian State Sponsored
and Other Cyber Offensive (Criminal) Operations."
These reports were delivered to Elias at a critical time -- on July 22,
when Wikileaks released thousands of emails believed to have been sources from the DNC hack . These emails detailed the internal
deliberations of the DNC that proved to be embarrassing to both Clinton and the DNC leadership -- Wasserman-Schultz was compelled
to resign due to the revelations set forth in these emails. This leak took place on the eve of the Democratic National Convention
when Clinton was to be selected as the Democrats' candidate for president. The Clinton campaign blamed Russia. "Russian state actors,"
Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign manager told the press , "were feeding the email to hackers for the purpose of helping Donald
Trump."
If Elias thought the publication of the DNC emails would spur the U.S. intelligence community to join both the DNC and the Clinton
campaign in pointing an accusatory finger at Russia, he would be disappointed. When questioned by CNN's Jim Sciutto at the
2016 Aspen
Security Forum as to whether or not the DNI shared the White House's view that there was no doubt Russia was behind the hack
of the DNC emails, Clapper responded, "I don't think we are quite ready to make a call on attribution I don't think we are ready
to make a public call on that yet." Noting that there was still some uncertainty about exactly who was behind the DNC cyber-penetration,
Clapper stated that he was taken aback by the media's "hyperventilation" over the DNC email issue, pointing out that the intelligence
community did not "know enough to ascribe motivation" at that time.
According to the
Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep inside the
Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit
the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from this
briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials
with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told
the New York Times
. The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives
-- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump."
This intelligence, allegedly from a "human source" linked to a foreign intelligence service, is at the center of the current spate
of Russian meddling investigations. Was this source a product of the CIA's own efforts, as DNI General Counsel Litt contends, or
was this an "echo" of the work done by Steele? The answer may lie in the actions of both Elias and Steele, who in the aftermath of
the Democratic National Convention, and on the heels of the statement by DNI Clapper that he wasn't ready to commit to Russian attribution,
shared the first two reports with both the FBI and members of the intelligence community.
Steele also sat down with U.S. officials to discuss the details of these reports , which presumably included the sourcing that
was used.
The parallels between the information contained in the initial report filed by Steele and the "bombshell" intelligence that prompted
Brennan's decision to brief the Gang of Eight are too close to be casually dismissed. Of particular note is Steele's "Source C,"
a senior Russian "financial official" who had "overheard Putin talking" on at least two occasions. Was this the source that Brennan
cited when it came to Putin's "specific instructions"? The cause and effect relationship between the decision by Marc Elias to brief
U.S. intelligence officials on the aspects of the Steele Dossier, and Brennan's coming into possession of intelligence that virtually
mirrors the reporting by Steele, cannot be dismissed out of hand.
The future of the Trump presidency will be determined by the various investigations currently underway. Those efforts have been
influenced, in one way or another, by reporting sourced to Perkins Coie, including the designation of Russia as the responsible party
behind the DNC cyber-breach and the Steele Dossier. These investigations are linked in their unquestioning embrace of the conclusions
set forth in the 2017 Russia Intelligence Community Assessment that Russia was, in fact, meddling in the election. However, the genesis
of that finding, both in terms of Russian involvement in the DNC hack and the "bombshell" intelligence introduced by Brennan in August
2016, has gone largely unquestioned by the investigators.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control
treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal
of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War (Clarity Press, 2017). MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery?
If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. But if it was a question of "tell us what you find, good, bad, or indifferent"
then uncovering what might be treasonable activity would be called a patriotic act.
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Donald Trump could defuse by simply releasing his tax returns and
allowing more transparency into his financial relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
Ritter's underlying 'logic' here extended would have us believe Alan Turin's breaking of the Enigma Machine was done in collusion
with Nazi U-boat commanders.
The spooks are still scared silly of Russiagate. "Hillary paid" doesn't mean "Hillary fabricated". That Mr Ritter is reduced to
such a manifestly silly argument shows just how spooked the spooks are. My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence
community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding
with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note, by the way, the absence of any reference to George
Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych.
Given that Russia's insiders (not to mention former-officials) are no more lined up with Putin than US counterparts and political
actors are behind any current US administration or opponent, within and without the party in power, there are presumably Russian
actors who would like to undermine Putin.
To the extent "the Russians" may be behind particular efforts – including information/disinformation – related to the 2016
US election, might they not have sought to undermine foreign and (Russian) domestic proponents of US-Russian detente?
" Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the
US election is quite another. "
This is a joke. I have no concern one way or the other about whether Trump colluded with Russia – if laws were broken, prosecute
the lot of them. But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia,
Iran, and Syria. As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism
can only complain about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us.
In DC we have a vicious fight between the McCain-Clinton forces and the Trump forces. It's a choice between warmongers.
Donald (the left leaning one), I agree with your concluding comment that we are left with a choice between two warmongers, no
question about that. However if you look at the corruption in the deep state in the Uranium One deal, how it was approved and
now nobody, I mean nobody knows anything about FBI informant and gag order on him for the last 8 years it is just mind boggling.
Oh well after all these years I think the African dictators have more integrity than our elected officials.
Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is
made up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians,
full stop (cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double
standard?
I've worked at large law firms, been a partner at several and litigated against Perkins Coie, so I know a bit about them. Knowing
the industry and this firm in particular, I can say without reservation that this statement is ridiculous: "Elias reportedly made
use of money already paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions
for deniability on the part of his clients." That does not and would not happen with a $12 million expense.
Mr. Ritter does not come out and say it, but there's a plausible explanation for all of this Russia nonsense we've been hearing
about for the past year. Until the day after the election, 99.9% of Democrats were convinced that Hillary Clinton would win. Once
enshrined in office, all of the misdeeds that they'd been getting away with for the past decade -- the Clinton Foundation, Uranium
One, the Pay-to-Play politics, etc. -- would be swept under the rug.
November came, and that didn't happen. Democrats were both floored and caught with their pants down. Now, all of their dirty
laundry was going to come out into the open. It was only a matter of time.
So, what did they do? The same thing Democrats always do. The best defense is an offense. 'Always accuse your opponents of
doing whatever wrong you've committed.' All of the sudden, it wasn't just that 'Russians hacked the election.' It became, 'the
Trump campaign secretly colluded with the Russians.' The Steele dossier was leaked, the FBI was briefed which in turn briefed
Obama, the Gang of Eight and Trump. Next, a Special Prosecutor had to be appointed to investigate.
But, where does it all lead? Back to Hillary, through Perkins Coie, and through many of the same Deep State players who were
complicit in the misdeeds.
We now learn that Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein all knew about Russians attempting to buy influence through donations to the
Clinton "charity," but they turned a blind eye when Uranium One was up for approval.
We now learn that Clinton and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier then fed it to Comey, who leaked it.
We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to
believe that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients.
What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is
of the past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration.
I find it curious that Crooked Mueller charged two republicans just as Crooked Hillary and the DNC were identified for paying
Russians for smear documents! America First!
How is it not true? Reports indicate that Mr. Steele did indeed use paid sources within Russia to compile the "dossier" on Trump.
Steele used money paid by the Clinton campaign labeled as "legal fees". There is a reason Hillary, DWS, Podesta and the others
have all lied.
I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't.
The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would
allow them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things
to get it past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him
in the election. It is really that simple of a story.
Did Obama's White House Counsel Bauer and Perkins Coie's Elias engage in a conspiracy to smear Trump and benefit the Clinton campaign?
Did they orchestrate a campaign trick, using the Fusion GPS dossier and an insider leaking DNC emails to Wikileaks,that falsely
smeared the Trump team?
Hillary and Fusion GPS both lobbied against business restrictions proposed and imposed by the Magnitsky legislation and both
received bonuses and payments from Russian entities with ties to the Putin gang.
Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate
if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier
relied on collaboration with Russian officials.
Given that several levels under the 17 intelligence heads of the Obama administration, including former FBI Director Mueller,
participated in suppressing known Russian bribery, obfuscated and obstructed the investigation into Hillary's national security
violations & pay to play schemes, and apparently conspired using a dossier, containing Russian supplied information, to throw
the last Presidential election, it is time to bring the Obama political appointees and Clinton campaign officials to justice and
stop the interference affecting the Trump administration.
In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates
the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration.
The Russian SVR RF was no doubt inside the DNC's server, just as it was no doubt inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured
email server on which she did all of her State Department business.
But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the damning evidence about the corruption of the DNC & its machinations
to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that damning evidence.
Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.
But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests there is something seriously
wrong with the Democ"rats" story.
Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime
Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama
administration covering up lawlessness.
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Hillary Clinton could defuse by simply releasing all of the government
emails she kept on a private server in order to keep them away from FOIA requests and allowing more transparency into her financial
relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
Nice try at deflection, but it is not likely to stop Muller because he has an actual brain. On the other hand, the comments indicate
that the conspiracy types are on board. Now I have it on good authority that there are ties between Steele and Benghazi as well
so it is time to wrap this all up together into a unified story.
Since most of the posters here seem to be partisan I'm sure that no one will like my preference: Lock both Trump and HRC up and
put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt to accuse one and defend the other is futile.
Karen Finney, formerly of the Clinton 2016 campaign, on October 29th:
"I think what's important, though, is less who funded it than what was in the dossier."
In the same interview:
"We also learned this week that Cambridge Analytica, the company that was basically the data company for the [Trump] campaign,
reached out to Julian Assange of Wikileaks."
Did everybody catch that?
In today's Democratic Party, it is perfectly acceptable to pay foreign sources for dirt, fabricated or not, on your domestic
political opponent.
But it is totally unacceptable to reach out to Wikileaks, with no money involved, for dirt on your domestic political opponent.
I'll note that Wikileaks has relied on whistle-blower sources and has not been shown to have published any false information in
its entire 10-year existence.
The Russian SVR RF was likely inside the DNC's server, just as it was likely inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured email
server on which she did all of her State Department business.
But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the evidence about the rotten corruption of the DNC & its machinations
to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that evidence.
Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.
But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests that there is something
seriously wrong with the Democ"rats" story.
To all of those who think that paying a foreign informant money to give you info is the same thing as accepting help from a foreign
government, you have some screws lose.
Furthermore, the help that Trump received was in the form of emails that have been stolen from an American citizen, a federal
offence.
The whole Uranium one non story is based on a book that his own author admitted he has no evidence of malfeasance by HRC ,
and who was paid for his effort by the Mercers.
Also, the Uranium cannot be exported outside the USA anyway, because the law prevents it, no matter who owns the company
To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think
that Hillary is in Putin's pocket? I don't think so. The issue, if you're being honest, is that a lot of people on the other side
can easily see Trump being in Putin's pocket. And so far he (Trump) has done nothing to disprove that. Remember the Glee that
the neocons had when Trump ordered a few missiles at Syria..guess what nothing came off it and Assad is still very much in power
and no one cares anymore (an outcome that I am fine with). You think things would have been the same if Hillary was in power?
But at the end of the day, we're left to wonder whether Trump is doing Putin's bidding Just because so far he has done nothing
that has been antagonistic towards Russian interests (Iran notwithstanding because nothing is going to come off it, all it is
going to do is make US look impotent, which will be fine by Putin).
If only Sanders had ever exclaimed something like "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn Russians!"
If there is any kind of actual evidence of state actors in the various efforts to force transparency on the Clinton campaign
and the DNC, it is now tainted by the association with Steele, Simpson, Elias, which appear to have repeatedly acted against client
privileges and privacy – peddling results paid for by one client to another, leaking information paid for by clients to the press,
Congress, the FBI – or have acted with client permission, while a former "spy" is accessing and potentially endangering networks
maintained by his former employer, a foreign intelligence service known for its ability to find yellowcake.
Only the Democrats can show such staggering ineptitude.
The plot needs some new, exciting turn at this point. Let us speculate that the Steele Dossier was in fact a false flag operation,
allowing "Russians" to discredit not one, but two presidential campaigns, not one, but two presidential candidates, a twofer that
makes whomever becomes President look like an idiot. One of the most ridiculous propositions of this whole affair has been the
claim that Putin would seriously care which incompetent and corrupt American gets to prosecute the self-inflicted ruin of this
blighted nation for the next four years.
@Virginia Farmer : "Lock both Trump and HRC up and put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt
to accuse one and defend the other is futile."
"To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think
that Hillary is in Putin's pocket?"
I'm not very partisan. I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental.
Clinton is not in Putin's pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's
pocket -- he has neocons and others working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in
the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis.
The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other.
They have them both in their pocket.
Yeah, I can't keep up with all the twists and turns. I read just enough to see both sides ( the partisan ones) live in closed
cognitive universes. I suspect there is plenty of corruption and dishonesty to go around, even if we restricted ourselves to real
or alleged Russian ties. But I wonder what would turn up if we really looked into how our foreign policy sausage is made?
In my annoyance I overstated it a little, but this thread is a good example of what I was saying about a lot of the liberal
commenters on TAC. I don't read a lot of these comments and see people who are giving the article much thought.
BTW I was about to write the exact same thing to JR you did regarding the Saudis and the Israelis.
As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted
to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs
a "bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power.
It would be interesting to explore possible connection of Browder and MI6. Why he changed his citizenship
to British as the scandal unfolded?
Notable quotes:
"... For those who believe in a meaningful democracy, those tactics may be troubling enough, but the Magnitsky case, an opening shot in the New Cold War with Russia, has demonstrated how aggressively the Western powers-that-be behave toward even well-reported investigative projects that unearth inconvenient truth. ..."
"... The documentary – "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – was produced by filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, who is known as a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin but who in this instance found the West's widely accepted, anti-Russian Magnitsky storyline to be a lie. ..."
"... However, instead of welcoming Nekrasov's discoveries as an important part of the debate over the West's policies toward Russia, the European Parliament pulled the plug on a premiere in Brussels and – except for a one-time showing at the Newseum in Washington – very few Americans have been allowed to see the documentary. ..."
"... This summer, Browder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and argued that people involved in arranging the one-time showing of Nekrasov's documentary should be prosecuted for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which carries a five-year prison term. ..."
"... Yet, the Times article bows to Browder as the ultimate truth-teller, including repetition of his assertion that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in the tax fraud. ..."
"... While Magnitsky's profession may seem like a small detail, it gets to the heart of the mainstream media's acceptance of Browder's depiction of Magnitsky – as a crusading lawyer who died of medical neglect in a Russian prison – despite overwhelming evidence that Magnitsky was really a clever accountant caught up in the scheme. ..."
"... The "lawyer" falsehood – so eagerly swallowed by the Times and other mainstream outlets – also bears on Browder's overall credibility: If he is lying about Magnitsky's profession, why should anyone believe his other self-serving claims? ..."
"... In that adversarial setting, when Browder was asked if Magnitsky had a law degree, Browder said, "I'm not aware that he did." When asked if Magnitsky had gone to law school, Browder answered: "No." ..."
"... Yet, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media accept that Magnitsky was a "lawyer," all the better to mislead the American public regarding his alleged role as a whistleblower. ..."
"... From my book, "The Killing of William Browder," suppressed by Amazon courtesy of Browder's lawyer Jonathan Winer (Amazon obliged, no questions asked): ..."
"... Mr. Cymrot: When you told people Mr. Magnitsky's a lawyer, did you also tell them he never went to law school and never had a law license? Browder: I'm sorry. I Mr. Cymrot: When you tell – how many times have you said, "Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer?" Browder: I don't know. Mr. Cymrot: 50? 100? 200? Browder: I don't know. Mr. Cymrot: Many, many times, right? Browder: Yes Mr. Cymrot: Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree? Browder: No. ..."
"... The fact that anyone who does scratch the surface, like yourself, is immediately attacked shows that Browder is serving the oligarchy. They wish very much to return to the rape, pillage, and plunder of Russia that they enjoyed under Yeltsin. Just like Russia-gate, they seek to control the narrative. The MSM carries their water, and people have to go to sites like this one to find the truth. Thank you very much for your work. ..."
"... Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign, ..."
Exclusive: In pursuit of Russia-gate, the U.S. mainstream media embraces any attack on Russia
and works to ensure that Americans don't hear the other side of the story, as with the Magnitsky
myth, reports Robert Parry.
As Russia-gate becomes the go-to excuse to marginalize and suppress independent and dissident
media in the United States, a warning of what the future holds is the blacklisting of a documentary
that debunks the so-called Magnitsky case.
The emerging outlines of the broader suppression are now apparent in moves by major technology
companies – under intense political pressure – to
unleash algorithms that will hunt down what major media outlets and mainstream "fact-checkers"
(with their own checkered histories of getting facts wrong) deem to be "false" and then
stigmatize
that information with pop-up "warnings" or simply make finding it difficult for readers using
major search engines.
For those who believe in a meaningful democracy, those tactics may be troubling enough, but
the Magnitsky case, an opening shot in the New Cold War with Russia, has demonstrated how aggressively
the Western powers-that-be behave toward even well-reported investigative projects that unearth inconvenient
truth.
Throughout the U.S. and Europe, there has been determined effort to prevent the American and European
publics from seeing this detailed documentary that dissects the fraudulent claims at the heart of
the Magnitsky story.
The documentary – "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – was produced by filmmaker Andrei
Nekrasov, who is known as a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin but who in this instance
found the West's widely accepted, anti-Russian Magnitsky storyline to be a lie.
However, instead of welcoming Nekrasov's discoveries as an important part of the debate over
the West's policies toward Russia, the European Parliament pulled the plug on a premiere in Brussels
and – except for a one-time showing at the Newseum in Washington – very few Americans have been allowed
to see the documentary.
Instead, we're fed a steady diet of the frothy myth whipped up by hedge-fund investor William
Browder and sold to the U.S. and European governments as the basis for sanctioning Russian officials.
For years now, Browder has been given a free hand to spin his dog-ate-my-homework explanation about
how some of his firms got involved a $230 million tax fraud in Russia.
Browder insists that some "corrupt" Russian police officers stole his companies' corporate seals
and masterminded a convoluted conspiracy. But why anyone would trust a hedge-fund operator who got
rich exploiting Russia's loose business standards is hard to comprehend.
The answer is that Browder has used his money and political influence to scare off and silence
anyone who dares point to the glaring contradictions and logical gaps in his elaborate confection.
So, the hedge-fund guy who renounced his U.S. citizenship in favor of a British passport gets
the royal treatment whenever he runs to Congress. His narrative just fits so neatly into the demonization
of Russia and the frenzy over stopping "Russian propaganda and disinformation" by whatever means
necessary.
This summer, Browder
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and argued that people involved in arranging
the one-time showing of Nekrasov's documentary should be prosecuted for violating the Foreign Agent
Registration Act (FARA), which carries a five-year prison term.
Meanwhile, the U.S. mainstream media helps reinforce Browder's dubious tale by smearing anyone
who dares question it as a "Moscow stooge" or a "useful idiot."
Magnitsky and Russia-gate
The Magnitsky controversy now has
merged with the Russia-gate affair because Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who traveled
to America to challenge Browder's account, arranged a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump
campaign advisers in June 2016 to present this other side of the story.
Though nothing apparently came from that meeting, The New York Times, which always treats Browder's
account as flat fact, led its Saturday editions with a breathless story entitled, "
A Kremlin Link to a Memo Taken to Trump Tower ," citing similarities between Veselnitskaya's
memo on the Magnitsky case and an account prepared by "one of Russia's most powerful officials, the
prosecutor general Yuri Y. Chaika." Cue the spooky music as the Times challenges Veselnitskaya's
honesty.
Yet, the Times article bows to Browder as the ultimate truth-teller, including repetition
of his assertion that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's
accountants implicated in the tax fraud.
While Magnitsky's profession may seem like a small detail, it gets to the heart of the mainstream
media's acceptance of Browder's depiction of Magnitsky – as a crusading lawyer who died of medical
neglect in a Russian prison – despite overwhelming evidence that Magnitsky was really a clever accountant
caught up in the scheme.
The "lawyer" falsehood – so eagerly swallowed by the Times and other mainstream outlets –
also bears on Browder's overall credibility: If he is lying about Magnitsky's profession, why should
anyone believe his other self-serving claims?
As investigative reporter Lucy Komisar noted in
a recent article on
the case, Browder offered a different description when he testified under oath in a New York court
deposition in a related criminal case.
In that adversarial setting, when Browder was asked if Magnitsky had a law degree, Browder
said, "I'm not aware that he did." When asked if Magnitsky had gone to law school, Browder answered:
"No."
Yet, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media accept that Magnitsky was a "lawyer,"
all the better to mislead the American public regarding his alleged role as a whistleblower.
The rest of Browder's story stretches credulity even more as he offers a convoluted explanation
of how he wasn't responsible for bogus claims made by his companies to fraudulently sneak away with
$230 million in refunded taxes.
Rather than show any skepticism toward this smarmy hedge-fund operator and his claims of victimhood,
the U.S. Congress and mainstream media just take him at his word because, of course, his story fits
the ever-present "Russia bad" narrative.Plus, these influential people have repeated the falsehoods
so often and suppressed contrary evidence with such arrogance that they apparently feel that they
get to define reality, which – in many ways – is what they want to do in the future by exploiting
the Russia-gate hysteria to restore their undisputed role as the "gatekeepers" on "approved" information.
Which is why Americans and Europeans should demand the right to see the Nekrasov documentary and
make their own judgments, possibly with Browder given a chance after the show to rebut the overwhelming
evidence of his deceptions.
Instead, Browder has used his wealth and connections to make sure that almost no one gets to see
the deconstruction of his fable. And The New York Times is okay with that.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Yes, Congress measures human worth in bribes: more from rich immigrants than from poor refugees.
We are fortunate to have Mr. Parry expose the corruption of oligarchy and its control of mass
media and elections.
Yes, Sam F, I signed on to that one some time ago I'm sure the NYT has a waste basket somewhere
that is full of "Russian trolls".
orayates5454 , October 28, 2017 at 11:01 pm
Commence your Home Business right now. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing
$75/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously.
Begin here
"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based
hedge fund manager Bill Browder [ ]
"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment
operation of the publishing billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally
a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated British soldier, then helped
in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia.
He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.
"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires
a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel, to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis.
Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection come about? Was it through
Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?
"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era
St. Petersburg art museum, though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz,
the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian
Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a partner but also a
mentor and friend.
"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main
backer of Israel's Shas party, the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial
museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University, the Weizmann Institute and much
more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising
that none of it gets mentioned.
"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance
of the inarticulateness that seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."
In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying
arms to the Ukrainians and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".
The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian
Jewish community abroad.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She
became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most
of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various publications in Russia.
Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor
Yushenko and his partner-rival Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs.
During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave one of the last interviews with the Russian
journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris Berezovsky,
Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.
In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz
newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs
at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America.
Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:11 pm
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent
industries, like binary options, have been allowed to flourish here.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs
of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship,
or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as
$10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the
Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands
of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories
of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World
War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the
applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud
which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays
out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment
that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan
Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars
of illegal profit" and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that
for Russian Jewish oligarchs, criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps
more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"
Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:19 pm
William Browder is a "shareholder activist" the way Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a "human rights
activist".
Both loudly bleat the "story" of their heroic "fight for justice" for billionaire Jewish oligarchs:
themselves.
Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish
corruption in the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.
Anna , October 29, 2017 at 7:58 am
Thank you. Who would expect all these crimes and lies from a progeny of a Jewish communist
Browder!
This is priceless: "The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered
as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings." In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet
Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding
Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who
had not suffered in the Holocaust."
Lois Gagnon , October 29, 2017 at 2:56 pm
Good info, but not surprising. Covering up the syndicate's global crime spree is priority #1.
If we view all events through this lens, it all makes perfect sense.
Abe, thanks for the informative backgrounder. The Goldberg link is also interesting, although
I note he signs on to the Russian Hacking myth and the "Magnitsky murder" theory.
Browder tried to refuse to accept the subpoena and fled.
United States Federal Judge, Thomas Griesa of the Southern District of New York issued a ruling
that compels Browder to travel to New York for a deposition.
Browder's lawyer, Randy Mastro, a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP said Browder "does
not have to consent to a deposition." He claimed that Browder is living and working in England
and is currently carrying a British passport. Browder is a former U.S. citizen.
In his ruling, Judge Griesa emphasized that Browder must comply with the subpoena in New York
because he conducts his business in the city on a "reasonably regular basis."
Browder's lawyer argued that the hedge fund manager was unable to attend in a deposition because
there are "credible threats" to his personal safety. In response, the judge pointed out that the
threats did not prevent Browder from going to different cable news networks to promote his book.
The federal court's order for Browder was connected to the civil case filed by federal prosecutors
in Manhattan against Russian businessman Denis Katsyv.
Browder had urged prosecutors to file lawsuits against Katsyv, who denied the allegations against
him. The lawyer representing Katsyv repeatedly tried to serve subpoenas to Browder as the primary
source of information in the complaint against the Russian businessman.
Browder opted to run away instead of complying with the subpoena.
Taras 77 , October 29, 2017 at 9:23 pm
Carden, the senator from AIPAC was and is a key supporter!
Thanks, Abe, for your informative posts. The stench on this one takes the Israeli lapdogs in
congress to new lows. Congress is either willfully uninformed or totally ignorant on the facts
in this case, maybe a distinction without a difference.
Abe , October 30, 2017 at 5:19 pm
Congress is either willfully uninformed nor totally ignorant
They're bought and paid for by the pro-Israel Lobby.
@Abe its called the Kosher Nostra. Exceeds anything the Neapolitans or Sicilians have managed.
Most people relate syndicated crime to Southern Italians . We can thank Hollywood for that and
that says it all . Lansky and Co have been running the mob for years but it's we southern Italians
that get the label of mobster. Russian jewish mobsters are behind most of the crimes of graft
,drugs and prostitution ,human trafficking, organ trafficking . You name it. They came to the
forefront starting from the deliberate Balkanising of the FDRY Yugoslavia and the implosion of
the USSR under Yeltsin they grew exponentially. The Godfather of this international Ashkenazi
judaic crime organisation is Semion Mogilevich born in the Ukraine in the 40's. This guy makes
Capone and Lucky Luciano look like choir boys., but everybody relates mobsters to these southern
Italians how bizarre that the truth is always something else.
Zachary Smith , October 29, 2017 at 12:29 am
Held for 11 months without trial,[4] he was, as reported by The Telegraph, "denied visits
from his family" and "forced into increasingly squalid cells." He developed gall stones, pancreatitis
and calculous cholecystitis, for which he was given inadequate medical treatment during his
incarceration. Surgery was ordered in June, but never performed; detention center chief Ivan
P. Prokopenko later said that he " did not consider Magnitsky sick Prisoners often try to pass
themselves off as sick, in order to get better conditions."
In prison without a trial. Worsening medical condition ignored. As the year time-limit approached,
Magnitsky was badly beaten – probably in a last ditch attempt to force the State's wishes on him.
Whether guilty or innocent, this shouldn't happen to a dog. But it happened with him, and
is happening this very moment all over the fine nation we call wonderful, Exceptional, and all
that. Privatized prisons who won't waste more than an aspirin tablet on an inmate. Low paid
goons who get away with darned near anything they want, even if THEY beat a prisoner to death.
Or kill him by choking him. Or by denying him water.
Nobody cares what goes on overseas – unless they can turn an individual gross miscarriage of
justice into another attack on Russia. Nobody cares here, either. I still recall my shock and
disgust at people who posed as "liberals" daydreaming about Carl Rove being put in the same cell
with the sex-starved pervert "Big Bubba".
Exceptional my ***!
tina , October 29, 2017 at 4:20 am
and meanwhile, in Milwaukee , Wisconsin, USA another innocent person died in the county jail.
Count that on five fingers, 5 people
dead in Milwaukee County Jail is as many months. GO USA MAGA
Lex , October 29, 2017 at 4:37 am
There is actually no credible evidence the accused accountant was beaten, this is just part
of Browder's big story to avoid paying taxes – like he has done his entire life. Even so, the
people working at the prison were all punished in Russia, yet somehow Russia is still the villain
– when was the last time you heard of US prison staff being punished for negligence or abuse?
I've read a book (also censored) about this whole affair, and it includes a lengthy section about
the financial crimes visited on Russia in the 90s by people like Browder, and it amounts to crimes
against humanity. Browder should be in a Russian prison, but instead his lies have caused both
the US and Canada to pass punitive sanctions against an entire nation – and lead the world down
a path towards war between the two largest nuclear powers. Spread the word – Browder is a charlatan
and a crook, and Magnitsky was likely thrown to the wolves by him.
You really believe in each word of the well-known Jewish fraudster Browder?
Sam F , October 29, 2017 at 8:57 am
It does seem most likely that Magnitsky simply lied about medical conditions; I have known
zionists to do that all their lives in yet another fake plea for special privileges. If the prison
manager really did not believe him, it is poetic justice in action.
US prisoners are in general the poor. Magnitsky was imprisoned for robbing the poor, a different
matter altogether. The Magnitsky Act proves that the US Congress cares for no one, but will take
bribes to pretend to care for the rich. Tell them that he was cheating zionists and they will
repeal the act.
Putin Apologist , October 29, 2017 at 1:47 am
Alex Krainer's book "The Killing of William Browder: Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception" does
a good job of exposing William Browder's fraud. It's a quick read about 200 pages. Amazon has
banned the book but eBay has it, for now.
Why does it even matter what we Americans think of Browder's dealings with said Russian officials?
Not to sound uncaring of human strive or anything like that, but shouldn't we Americans allow
the Russians the right of their own laws and sovereignty to settle their own affairs? Shouldn't
we Americans be more concerned with how many to a few had died in our own American prisons last
year, and why does our land of the free America have such a huge prison population?
This Browder Road is Road we Americans should not go down. There is no reason we should, and
Browder's story is too controversial by the poor credibility of his own accusations. There is
a oligarchical fist fight going on over there in Russia, and it's former satellites, and America
should let that region iron out their own differences. Read Phil Butler over at New Eastern Onion,
and the Saker, these guys like Robert Parry are on to this Zionist intrusion.
tina , October 29, 2017 at 4:15 am
Hi joe,
I know you guys are a bit older than I , but growing up in Munich, Germany in the 70's and 80's
, was a lot different from you guys in the 60's. Afghanistan 1977, Tehran, Iran 1979, The usa
did so much damage, 1953 the brits and usa overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran.
Why should anyone like or welcome American troops? Since ww2, they have done nothing but wreak
hatred in the world. I wish I could like this country, but I just can't
Joe Tedesky , October 29, 2017 at 5:45 am
Well let me tell ya my young friend tina, the best of America isn't being portrayed at this
moment by our media to well these days. In the land of the free, are a lot of nice people tina,
but they like you are in the midst these days of being pulled apart from the top down. Most of
this tearing apart has been accomplished by the politicians misuse of holding up identity civil
rights issues as cover for their own selfish gains. This identity issue is used, since returning
to the days of the FDR New Deal is an improbable campaign promise, all because both political
parties have done a fine job of destroying that very political uplifting program set in place
some eighty years ago.
So tina you don't need to love the current government in the U.S., but to be patient a little
while longer and then you may try and learn to like, or love if you will, the American individual,
whoever that individual is you are fortunate enough to meet. On the other hand you could just
go to Holland. Joe
Skip Scott , October 29, 2017 at 12:08 pm
Tina-
I am wondering why anyone anywhere would ever welcome any foreign troops in their own country.
I am certain that one thing that would be a bi-partisan agreement for US citizens is that no foreign
troops are welcome here, especially to "show" us how to run our country. I find it very strange
that so few Americans seem to be able to make the logical jump to assume the same of other countries'
citizens.
Browder is a sleaze, and the fact that he can be called a "human rights activist" in the US
shows how low oligarchy and its congressional minions can go. He can't stand that Putin and the
Duma went after him, among other oligarchs and big money crooks, when the US tried to scavenge
Russia (which they still want to do).
Thank you for that information, Abe, on Browder's past and present shady connections. And Lex,
please tell me what is the book you read on the case? And who can we get to show this film in
this age of suppressed truth?
When you read articles in CN and those of the commentators the evidence against their targets
seems so one sided, that the truth must be somewhere in between. But then, for example, you read
works by people like Pappe' on Israel and recently Stephen Cohen on our distortions of events
and so many others and you come to understand that what these folks are saying is true and then
you wonder how can it change for the better when all the usual avenues of expression are guarded
by the deciders. Perhaps why we have become so tortured by this reality is that we better understand
it because of the information revolution, that what is always was. And perhaps we will all be
saved by those who have decided we are not getting the right information. Perhaps if their algorythyms(sp?)
succeed, we will all feel better, less conflicted. We will all come to understand that shock and
awe in Iraq was not a human tragedy but wonderful entertainment.
anon , October 29, 2017 at 8:42 am
algorithms. Yes, the truth of control of US mass media and elections by oligarchy is unpleasant
but essential medicine.
In the interview of Magnitsky's mother, she was asked when her son graduated from Law school.
She stated that he never went to Law school – he's an accountant . Even his Mother knew he was
not honest – LOL So, what can we expect from a US government when they will kill Our President
, cover it up, and hide it from those that believe in them ? Nothing ! And for the record – Putin
claimed that 80% of those in control before the break-up of the Soviet Union – were Zionists and
jewish oligarchs. Guess who is running the US government and has already stolen most of the public
funds as Soc. Sec. etc. ? oo dah chee !
Realist , October 29, 2017 at 8:00 am
Yeah, apparently Congress and two presidents can't handle the truth, and figure that you can't
either.
The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible.
Anna , October 29, 2017 at 8:23 am
"Their" "journalists:"
"The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish
community abroad. Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family
in 1990. She became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. In 2008,
Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in
Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks.
In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America."
I am impressed with the knowledge many readers of CN have of these events. You almost qualify
as bone fide "Putin Puppets" under federal statute. I, myself, am only aware of the basic outline
of the story, but most Americans, I am sure, have never even heard of Magnitsky or Browder. To
them, "Browder" probably means an American actor. Most of Congress probably believes Magnitsky
was one Putin's many "political enemies" he had "assassinated" by exotic means. Can you imagine
how deep this would all be buried, and yet exploited to the hilt to punish Russia, if Hillary
now sat in the White House? Facts and narratives, entirely two different things. One you are denied,
the other you are force fed in Amerika.
David G , October 29, 2017 at 9:22 am
"The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible."
"The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible." Wonderful
comment – that sums it all up exactly. Those who are the master criminals in our society seek
to operate in complete secrecy, so that they can do whatever they wish to their unsuspecting victims,
and cloak themselves in an aura of righteousness. Those who seek to expose the truth of their
machinations become their most feared and hated enemies.
We Americans didn't want to hear the truth when our own government assassinated the Kennedys
and MLK in the 1960, or when we were "secretly" saturation bombing Cambodia, or overthrowing democracy
in Chile, or creating Islamic terrorists and funding them with drugs in Afghanistan, or running
drugs for gun in Iran-Contra, or training our deaths squads in Guatemala and El Salvador, or killing
a half million Iraqi children, because, well, "Saddam is a dictator" – the list is virtually endless
of truths we Americans simply didn't and/or don't want to know. Collectively we're like some grotesque
ugly monster that looks into our very special magic mirror (corporate media) which rather then
tell us the truth, instead tells us we are so beautiful and so exceptional and so indispensable
to the world, and above all the laws that apply to mere mortals. And now more and more any attempts
to remove the mirror and let the truth seep through must be endlessly suppressed by the power
structure. Another example of this is the recent suppression of the English language version of
the German book "Bought Journalists," which looks at the corruption and manipulation of media
in Europe by the CIA
Jessica K. I think the book you are looking for is "The Killing of william browder" (Lower
case intentional) by Alex Krainer . Do not waste your time going to amazon.
Lisa , October 29, 2017 at 11:29 am
This book can be downloaded free. Search for the book name and you should get the website among
the first hits on google. (archive org.)
I'll give the complete link below (as the links may delay the comment publication).
I've downloaded it but haven't gotten very far. There is so much to read and investigate every
day – and a life needs to be lived at the same time
Riva Enteen , October 29, 2017 at 12:09 pm
I recently asked an anti-Putin Ukrainian how she would define oligarch. She said somebody with
lots of money who uses it for political influence. What you call lobbyists.
Skip Scott , October 29, 2017 at 12:15 pm
Browder is such an obvious scumbag. How anyone could watch this youtube of him attempting to
dodge a subpoena in NYC, and not see him for what he is is beyond me.
Can men and women who read this able to arrange interviews (via print, radio or video) of Sergei
Nekrasov for the purpose of fully informing the American people on the hugely important Magnitsky
controversy please do so quickly? Thank you. Peace.
Abe , October 29, 2017 at 4:47 pm
For the purpose of fully informing the American people, it's important to interview Andrei
Nekrasov.
Not so important to interview retired Russian athlete Sergei N.
Thank you very much for the correction, in that our comment mis-named the film's director as
"Sergei" instead of correctly as Andrei. Thank you as well for the many insightful comments you
make here, alongside the many other men and women followers who've been contributing through excellent
comments at Consortium News. Thank you, again. Peace.
From the NYT piece cited: "The matching messages point to a synchronized information campaign."
I've come to the conclusion that one of the best indicators of a propaganda campaign is when
the participants are completely void of any sense of irony.
ranney , October 29, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Robert, as always, you provide a clear presentation of the subject. I would indeed like to
protest the censorship of this film as I'm sure lots of others would after reading your articles
on the subject – but how does one do that???
Who should we protest to? Is there a petition going 'round? Or is there any other way to protest?
Is there a person or government agency we can protest to who has the power to get the film shown?
Is there a film agency to write to? Is the film seriously banned – or is it just that people in
the film industry are scared to death of some payback? If that is the case, what sort of threat
is held over them?
In any case, you can understand that those of us who would like to protest have no idea where
to start. Have you any suggestions?
There's a serious problem somewhere in the legal framework, possibly in most western countries.
A lawyer petitions a publisher to suppress some materials and threatens lawsuits and the publishers
oblige. In my book's case they claimed defamatory content but have no obligation to prove anything.
The claim is sufficient. Then Amazon instructed me to work it out with Browder and his lawyers.
The really scary implication of thsi is that if you ar lawyered-up elite you can effectively control
what may be said and written about you and censor any content that challenges your own narrative.
For most people by far fighting for their right of freedom of expression in court is prohibitive
and impossible. As author, I'm forced to wrangle this right throught the legal system against
far more powerful player. In effect, freedom of expression has been voided in the west, sadly.
"The killing of William Crowder", Alex Krainer, 2017, (a critique of Crowder's Red Notice,
was also almost immediately de-listed by Amazon due to Crowder Attorneys
Taras 77 , October 29, 2017 at 9:41 pm
This is a link to an article summarizing Browder's criminal activities:
From my book, "The Killing of William Browder," suppressed by Amazon courtesy of Browder's
lawyer Jonathan Winer (Amazon obliged, no questions asked):
Browder's deposition in the Prevezon case in Dec. 2015:
Mr. Cymrot: When you told people Mr. Magnitsky's a lawyer, did you also tell them he never
went to law school and never had a law license?
Browder: I'm sorry. I
Mr. Cymrot: When you tell – how many times have you said, "Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer?"
Browder: I don't know.
Mr. Cymrot: 50? 100? 200?
Browder: I don't know.
Mr. Cymrot: Many, many times, right?
Browder: Yes
Mr. Cymrot: Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree?
Browder: No.
There's so much more. Scratch the surface and Browder's hoax is hysterically childish like
a high school punk contrived it.
Skip Scott , October 31, 2017 at 12:41 pm
The fact that anyone who does scratch the surface, like yourself, is immediately attacked
shows that Browder is serving the oligarchy. They wish very much to return to the rape, pillage,
and plunder of Russia that they enjoyed under Yeltsin. Just like Russia-gate, they seek to control
the narrative. The MSM carries their water, and people have to go to sites like this one to find
the truth. Thank you very much for your work.
j. D. D. , October 30, 2017 at 7:06 pm
Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge
of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign,
There has been determined effort to prevent the American and European publics from seeing this
detailed documentary that dissects the fraudulent claims at the heart of the Magnitsky story.
"... Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign, ..."
Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the
knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump
campaign,
be scared .. from Slate/Dahlia Litwick apparently Manifort and Gates have been denied
Attorney Client Privilege (not entirely unprecedented, but shall we say in this case dubious,
scary) -- this is a financial crimes case no exigent circumstances, not "criminal" as in
"violent criminality" or imminent danger to anyone (I suspect they are "afraid" of being
out-lawyered, out-maneuvered)
"All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of
the
power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton.
The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with
a similar outcome.)"
Notable quotes:
"... All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with a similar outcome.) ..."
"... Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the competition. ..."
"... Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it learn that from committing mass atrocities in about each campaign it ever fought? ..."
"... The deep-seated problems plaguing the USA do have solutions, but they are not those being forwarded by the very radical conservatives now in charge of Congress and many statehouses. And the junta members share their mindsets. So, I see the domestic situation continuing to spiral further out-of-control with no sign anywhere of a countervailing power arising with the potential to steer the ship-of-state away from the massive reef it's rapidly heading for ..."
"... Ah, Masha Gessen, literally cancer. Who elevated her? I find it interesting that she does the "translating" for the CIA-scripted FX show "The Americans", a show which has probably more effectively demonized Russians for the cud-chewing crowd than the sum total of Cold War propaganda since the 50s AND the daily Russian hate columns in Wapo et al that trickle down to the Buzzfeed crowd. ..."
"... Military junta or not b, make no mistake, the real power behind the throne are a cabal of billionaires who buy their way by co-opting the politicians who make the laws. Democracy is indeed dead here in the U$A. It's now a full-blown Oligarchy. ..."
"... I agree with this division of power and would add that Trump is also the candidate of the police. I see the media though as more being in the CIA/corporate camps. I think the military backing is necessary as you mention to take the CIA down a few notches. So far I'd say the result in Syria is promising. ..."
"... This tribal civil war is also spilling over into places like Las Vegas, which clearly is run by the Jewish Mafia. There still is no plausible motive given for the shooting incident, but we know that the owners of MGM would never willingly have allowed this to happen on their own property. So it clearly was a hit, and with Area 51 down the road and all the MIC contractors in Vegas, it is highly unlikely that they were not involved or at least aware of the operation. ..."
"... The ground work, or state-of-affairs that lead to what one might call a soft military coup in the US (see b) = within what, at one extreme could be called Ayn-Randian rabid individualism, and at the other a sort of neo-liberal capitalism which is nevertheless highly 'socialist' in the sense re-distributive from the center of power (if only to create a slave/subservient class and prevent uprisings), there is NO public space for 'solidarity' within (besides familial, or close, etc.) ..."
"... historically, dying empires invest in the double prong, military conquest + internal control (can be vicious) ..."
"... I don't think it is all that clear. Corps or better conglomerates of power like 'the media', the 'silicons', banking and finance, Energy, electronics, Big Pharma, etc. are politcally inclined (say!) to some form of corporate fascism, > bought pols from all-sides of any-aisle. Their ties to the military / milit. type power at home are not very strong, they may collaborate on occasion. Some of these 'industries' fear domination that goes beyond soft power and they loathe sanctions - think about who/what/how is doing lucrative deals and has continuing biz success in Iraq, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, etc. - NOT US cos./corps. ..."
"... First, if the only two choices were the Executive CIA and the Military "Junta" with Trump why would we continue the farce of elections? And if the elections were pre-determined and the ruling Junta took over in a coup, then how and why is the CIA out of power? ..."
"... The "farce of elections" is accurate because Trump is not doing what he claimed he would do, not unusual actually. It was Trump who sprang the "junta" on us. And who claimed that the CIA would be out of power? ..."
"... I used to think it was a counter-coup also. But sheep-dog Sanders and Trump's having supported Hillary in 2008 among other things caused me to conclude that it all bullshit. I now believe that the hyper-partisanship is just a show. The political system in the US is designed to prevent any real populist from gaining power. We are being played. Trump is the Republican Obama. ..."
"... The excuse for this was that while US hands were tied (because public wouldn't support further adventurism after Iraq) close allies could push forward. But the new Cold War has changed the calculus. ..."
"... The US isn't giving up on Empire. It's just a different type of Empire for a different type of environment. When Trump talks about "draining the swamp" I think he merely refers to foreign influence. ..."
"... Trump has one ally and that is the 65million voters who put him into office. He surrendered his top people. Saker says it was lack of character. I think when they point the gun at you, your family, your closest friends in your life, you acquiesce. They even took from him Keith Schiller, his personal security man for years. Kelly forced him out of the WH. ..."
"... On the bright side, members of Congress are at least nominally elected. Four star Generals, not so much. It's still a felony carrying a prison term of 5 to 10 years per incident to lie to Congress. The military have no precedent to recommend them either as a source of information or in their decision making ability. They are way out of their depth when it comes to administering a nation. ..."
"... Moon of Alabama always writes interesting and insightful critiques of the Deep State, the military, and the imperialist/war party, but falls flat on his face in his naive faith in the supposed anti-establishment, populist, and America First Nationalist proclivities of Donald Trump, and his arch-reactionary Svengali Steve Bannon. There is indeed at least one major split in the ranks of the ruling class, but to present Trump and Bannon as either valiant figures struggling for the national good, or noble isolated men surrounded by vipers and traitors is absurd. ..."
"... Now, in its late imperial decline, the U.S. has become unable to continue to exercise hegemony, the way it became accustomed to in the first 70+ years in the Post-WW 2 period. The number one Client/Ally/Master, Israel and their deeply embedded 5th Column in the U.S., the Zionists with their associated Pro-Zionist factions within the War Party, now nearly directly and openly controls U.S. foreign policy and military actions in the regions that the Likudnik faction in Israel cares about (i.e. the Levant, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa). ..."
"... Hollowed out economically and industrially the U.S. Empire is clearly on the way out. The various factions fighting for control of policy seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. ..."
In an advertising campaign in 2008 the U.S. Air Force declared itself to be "Above
All". The slogan and symbol of the campaign
was similar to the
German "Deutschland Über Alles" campaign of 1933. It was a sign of things to come.
On Thursday Masha Gessen watched the press briefing of White House Chief of Staff General
John Kelly and
concluded :
The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would
look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments .
Those who criticize the President don't know what they're talking about because they
haven't served in the military . ...
The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his generals told him to
do . ...
Communication between the President and a military widow is no one's business but
theirs. ...
Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. ...
Gessen is late. The coup happened months ago. A military junta is in strong control of White
House polices. It is now widening its claim to power.
All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of
the
power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton.
The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with
a similar outcome.)
The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet.
With the help of the media the generals in the White House defeated their civilian
adversary. In August the Trump ship dropped its ideological
pilot . Steve Bannon went from board. Bannon's militarist enemy, National Security Advisor
General McMaster, had won. I
stated :
Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary"
candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that
insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office.
An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the
White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public
figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law.
The military took full control of White House processes and policies:
Everything of importance now passes through
the Junta's hands ... To control Trump the Junta filters his information input
and eliminates any potentially alternative view ... The Junta members dictate their policies
to Trump by only proposing certain alternatives to him. The one that is most preferable to
them, will be presented as the only desirable one. "There are no alternatives," Trump will be
told again and again.
With the power center captured the Junta starts to implement its ideology and to suppress
any and all criticism against itself.
On Thursday the 19th Kelly
criticized Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of South Florida for hearing in (invited) on a
phone-call Trump had with some dead soldiers wife:
Kelly then continued his criticism of Wilson, mentioning the 2015 dedication of the Miramar
FBI building, saying she focused in her speech that she "got the money" for the building.
The video of the Congresswoman's speech (above link) proves that Kelly's claim was a
fabrication. But one is no longer allowed to point such out. The Junta, by definition, does not
lie. When the next day journalists asked the White House Press Secretary about Kelly's
unjustified attack she
responded:
MS. SANDERS: If you want to go after General Kelly, that's up to you. But I think that that
-- if you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that that's
something highly inappropriate
It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules the empire.
... ... ...
If the soldiers do not work "for any other reason than that they love this country" why do
they ask to be paid? Why is the public asked to finance 200 military
golf courses ? Because the soldiers "love the country"? Only a few 10,000 of the 2,000,000
strong U.S. military will ever see an active front-line.
And imagine the "wonderful joy" Kelly "got in his heart" when he
commanded the illegal torture camp of Guantanamo Bay:
Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom he had
maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. His response to the detainees'
peaceful hunger strike in 2013 was punitive force-feeding, solitary confinement, and rubber
bullets. Furthermore, he sabotaged efforts by the Obama administration to resettle detainees,
consistently undermining the will of his commander in chief.
Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States
Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the
competition. Pompeo also wants to again feel the "wonderful joy". On Friday he
promised that the CIA would become a "much more vicious agency". Instead of merely
waterboarding 'terrorists' and drone-bombing brown families, Pompeo's more vicious CIA will
rape the 'terrorist's' kids and nuke whole villages. Pompeo's remark was made at a
get-together of the Junta and neo-conservative warmongers.
On October 19 Defense Secretary General Mattis was asked in Congress about the recent
incident in Niger during which, among others, several U.S. soldiers were killed. Mattis
set
(vid 5:29pm) a curious new metric for deploying U.S. troops:
Any time we commit out troops anywhere it is based on a simple first question and that is -
is the well-being of the American people sufficiently enhanced by putting our troops there ,
by putting our troops in a position to die?
In his October 20 press briefing General Kelly also tried to
explain why U.S. soldiers are in Niger:
So why were they there ? They're there working with partners, local -- all across Africa --
in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better soldiers;
teaching them how to respect human rights ...
Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it
learn that from committing mass atrocities in about
each campaign it ever fought?
One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights"
was
a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than a
dozen awards and decorations". The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to
teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the
American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"? Will anyone really buy that bridge?
But who would dare to ask more about this? It is" highly inappropriate " to doubt whatever
the military says. Soon that will change into "verboten". Any doubt, any question will be
declared "fake news" and a sign of devious foreign influence. Whoever spreads such will be
blocked from communicating.
The military is now indeed "Above All". That air force slogan was a remake of a 1933
"Über Alles" campaign in Germany. One wonders what other historic similarities will
develop from it.
Posted by b on October 21, 2017 at 03:58 PM | Permalink
The military junta rely on the US dollar as reserve currency for their lurks and perks. The
more they take power, the faster this will slip away. So called allies will move towards
China/Russia and other currencies.
Dangerous times but the downfall of the US is gaining momentum.
@1 While I understand the temptation to link Trump to Neo-con policies, I think it over
simplifies the issue.
Thierry Meyssan has a recent article in which he questions how seriously we should take
the US's anti-Iran policy. In it he states "We have to keep in mind that Donald Trump is not
a professional politician, but a real estate promoter, and that he acts like one. He gained
his professional success by spreading panic with his outrageous statements and observing the
reactions he had created amongst his competitors and his partners."
That statement is a great summary of one of the key precepts of what I called
'asymmetrical leadership' - which I think characterizes Trumps leadership style (an
application of asymmetrical warfare techniques to the political arena). This does not mean
that the Junta has not taken over control. I would agree with b on this. However, the forms
by which that control get expressed will still run through Trump and will still reflect his
'asymmetric' style.
It does take someone on the other side of the world to give perspective. I don't think it is
as much a military junta as things are falling apart. The generals are attempting to keep
their corrupt war profits flowing. The media moguls still hate Donald Trump; only as an
oligarch hates another. Donald Trump is firing up his base. Expect, the whole of the
alt-right propaganda is false. It relies on the hatred of others. All he will do is speed up
the splintering. If your home is foreclosed, flooded, polluted, burned down or blown apart;
reality is slapping you in the face.
One of your most important posts, b. At first I thought it strange that you would quote Masha
Gessen, an infamous anti-Putin journalist and Khodorkovsky fan, but then it didn't seem so
strange. Gessen is a Zionist, therefore she is aligned with the CIA/Wall Street faction,
which as you perceptively say lost out with Trump and Raqqa. I say Wall Street as opposed to
corporate because, as I have pointed out before, non-financial corporates - and that includes
most of the Dow Jones or FTSE - have fuck all say on anything except how they are going to
meet next quarterly's earnings estimates. And the CIA is very close to Wall Street.
What interests me is how this relates to Iran, on which both factions appear to be in
agreement, but there must be nuances. The Saker published an article where,in my opinion, he
failed to give enough weight to how circumstances around Iran have changed over the last
decade. I see little green men in large green aircraft weaving their way down the Caspian
Sea, not to mention invisible Chinese hardware in the sense of how did it get there, and a
Europe which is in disarray with their tongues hanging out for deals with Iran. The success
of the anti-Trump MSM narrative combined with fears of potentially millions of Iranian
refugees would surely indicate this is the worst possible time to attack Iran. So how can
they conjure a war out of this?
On a far more insidious note, one has to wonder what an radiological 'expert' was doing in
Niger - thanks b for that important piece of info.
When that info is combined with:
1) US Special ops in Mali from 2006
2) US operation Oasis Enabler (2009) looking to infiltrate and control Elite Malian army
units
3) March 2012 Coup brought to power American trained Capt. Amadou Sanogo
4) French Operation Serval, at the request of the 'interim government' fights to control
northern Malian territory and URANIUM mines along the Mali - Niger border (they said they
fought ISIS but what they actually fought was a Tuareg separatist movement)
together with the presence of ISIS (the US trained, evacuated from Syria version?) in the
area... Ominous is hardly strong enough to describe the feeling...
I start my comment by referencing these since the operational doctrine of the Outlaw US
Empire is to keep any such challenges to its perceived dominance--and quest for total
dominance--subdued to the point of insignificance. As you can clearly read, Xi, China, Putin,
Russia, and their allies aren't going to allow any junta to stop their integration and
development plans preparing their nations and region for the future--plans and thinking
woefully absent from any sector of the Outlaw US Empire excepting perhaps weapon development.
The just completed Valdai Conference provides an excellent insight to the drama, the comments
and visions are as important as they're powerful, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/55882
I could pile more of the same for barflies to digest, but I don't think that's required.
There's a very longstanding joke about the joining together of these two words--military
intelligence--and for good reason, particularly within the Outlaw US Empire. I don't think
anyone within the governmental establishment has any idea of what to do about the
Eurasian/Muiltipolar Challenge other than trying to break it--no ideas of how to compete or
join it so as to also profit from it. The reason for this as I see it is ideological--Zero
Sumism and Randian junk economics is so deeply ingrained they've polluted minds to the point
where their blinded and unable to think outside the box they've caged themselves within:
Hoisted by their own petard as the saying goes. They just can't accept Win/Win as something
viable--sharing is for sissies and commies. Problem is that well over half of humanity sees
Win/Win as eminently viable and far more welcome than the demonstrably failed Zero Sum Game
promoted by Randian political-economists and enforced through the barrel a gun.
The deep-seated problems plaguing the USA do have solutions, but they are not those being
forwarded by the very radical conservatives now in charge of Congress and many statehouses.
And the junta members share their mindsets. So, I see the domestic situation continuing to
spiral further out-of-control with no sign anywhere of a countervailing power arising with
the potential to steer the ship-of-state away from the massive reef it's rapidly heading for.
There might be a surprise in store from the junta, however--it might just take on a bit of
the massive corruption plaguing the USA by attacking the Clinton Foundation and its related
sewage. Although, that just solves one part of a huge host of problems.
funny thing that just accord to me that i had not thought of for nearly ten years, one of the
initial "benefits" of the state of Israel, was the cutting off of Africa from asia, and its
pretty glaring that a project to connect Asia Africa and Europe does not include the logical
land route as well.
At least in the times of Caesar and Augustus, military junta who seized power could claim to
be effective and victorious military, able to crush significant enemy armies. The current top
military in the US were at best kiddies the last time the US actually managed to defeat a
truly powerful enemy, back in 1945. (though this criticism can apply to all major powers)
Ah, Masha Gessen, literally cancer. Who elevated her? I find it interesting that she does the
"translating" for the CIA-scripted FX show "The Americans", a show which has probably more
effectively demonized Russians for the cud-chewing crowd than the sum total of Cold War
propaganda since the 50s AND the daily Russian hate columns in Wapo et al that trickle down
to the Buzzfeed crowd.
We need to start calling the CIA traitors, actual traitors. Masha Gessen is CIA, CIA
ghostwrites for most MSM. Traitors all. But even without the constant hagiographies, would
people start to get it? "Americans", I mean?
Here's a bit of what Hamid Karzai at the Valdai Club had to say about what the junta
accomplished in Afghanistan:
"Today, I am one of the greatest critics of the US policy in Afghanistan. Not because I am
anti-Western, I am a very Western person. My education is Western, my ideas are Western. I am
very democratic in my inner instincts. And I love their culture. But I am against the US
policy because it is not succeeding. It is causing us immense trouble and the rise of
extremism and radicalism and terrorism. I am against the US policy because on their watch,
under their total control of the Afghan air space, the Afghan intelligence and the Afghan
military, of all that they have, that super power, there is Daesh in Afghanistan. How come
Daesh emerged in Afghanistan 14–15 years after the US presence in Afghanistan with that
mass of resources and money and expenditure? Why is the world not as cooperative with America
in Afghanistan today as it was before? How come Russia now has doubts about the intentions of
the US in Afghanistan or the result of its work in Afghanistan? How come China does not view
it the same way? How come Iran has immense difficulty with the way things are conducted in
Afghanistan?
"Therefore, as an Afghan in the middle of this great game, I propose to our ally, the
United States, the following: we will all succeed if you tell us that you have failed. We
would understand. Russia would understand, China would understand. Iran, Pakistan, everybody
would understand. India would understand. We have our Indian friends there. We see all signs
of failure there, but if you do not tell us you failed, what is this, a game?"
I doubt the junta will do any better than its performed in Afghanistan because it only
knows how to play the game Karzai describes. Link is same as one above.
We can now add the Air Force being 'Above All' to the supremacist 'exceptional and
indispensable' lunatic attitude in the US that is definitely psychologically the same as
another people that thought they were 'Uber Alles'.
You stated: The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a
counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful
one).
I differ. JFK was taken out by a combined US Naval Intel and CIA plot. The beneficiary was
the MIC. Eleven days later, LBJ reversed the executive order by JFK to end the US involvement
in Nam. For 11 more years the Military got what it wanted--war.
LBJ got what he wanted--the Presidency. The Cuban-Americans got what they wanted--revenge for failure at Bay of Pigs by
Kennedy. The Mafia got what they wanted--revenge for Bobby Kennedy.
One other thing about the counter-insurgency. It was not so much Military. They waited while
the IC ran the leaks and counter-insurgency. Then,Trump fell into the Military's arms. He had
been cut off from his base and key supporters and had to empower them by obedience to their
plans. Foreign policy is what they wanted. He can still have all the domestic policy he can
get, which is basically nothing much. A SC justice, some EOs, and all the Twitter-shit he can
muster.
American democracy is indeed dead. The US Military's only real victory after WWII. After
Vietnam, the generals said: "Freedom of speech and of the press and of assembly and the right
to trial by jury and all that crap has got to go! And they got rid of it all! The Junta is in
control. And the only positive aspect is that we have a rolling Fukushima disaster in Trump,
who could implode and then explode in a nuclear Holocaust any second from all the humiliation
and investigations crushing in on him--if the Junta did not keep tight control over all the
information coming in to him. So you better leave them in place or... BAM! That's the
blackmail. But it only works as long as Trump has sole authority to launch our nuclear
arsenal. If someone else with a 2nd launch key were required to agree, the Junta would no
longer be needed to "protect" us Mafia-style.
Military junta or not b, make no mistake, the real power behind the throne are a cabal of
billionaires who buy their way by co-opting the politicians who make the laws. Democracy is indeed dead here in the U$A. It's now a full-blown Oligarchy.
Re Bill Wedin at 18, you wrote "the blackmail only works as long as Trump has sole authority
to launch our nuclear arsenal."
Authority to launch also includes predelegation to some of the highest ranking military,
in the event of a perceived nuclear attack, in which the National Command Authority is
disrupted and unable to give launch orders. However, this leaves open the question as to
whether the President could be bypassed in the process.
Trident sub commanders also have the necessary launch codes on board to initiate a nuclear
strike. Yes, the codes are under lock and key, but the key is on board.
The current US militarism also reflects on the kneeling during the national anthem, which is
also an ode to the flag in a war setting -- "by the rockets red glare" etc. President Trump
has said the protests (against police killing blacks) are unpatriotic and disrespectful of
military veterans. Trump has initiated a petition: "The President has asked for a list of
supporters who stand for the National Anthem. Add your name below to show your patriotism and
support."
Randolph Bourne (see #8) had some thoughts on this.
. . . We reverence not our country but the flag. We may criticize ever so severely our
country, but we are disrespectful to the flag at our peril. It is the flag and the uniform
that make men's heart beat high and fill them with noble emotions, not the thought of and
pious hopes for America as a free and enlightened nation. It cannot be said that the object
of emotion is the same, because the flag is the symbol of the nation, so that in
reverencing the American flag we are reverencing the nation. For the flag is not a symbol
of the country as a cultural group, following certain ideals of life, but solely a symbol
of the political State, inseparable from its prestige and expansion.
""All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the
power triangle, the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The
Pentagon proxy won over the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with the
same outcome.)""
I agree with this division of power and would add that Trump is also the candidate of the
police. I see the media though as more being in the CIA/corporate camps. I think the military backing is necessary as you mention to take the CIA down a few
notches. So far I'd say the result in Syria is promising.
I think this CIA/corporate power has to be dealt with first to give progressive/socialist
ideas much of a chance. It's a fine line but the military is supposed to protect against
enemies foreign and domestic.
The corporate part of course has huge power over Congress.
a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist"
This is Niger - Remember back in 2002/2003 :
The Italian letter and Yellow Cake. These days we have Areva mining uranium in Niger
Hence the French military offering both security and protecting the "assets" of French
Establishment. Those soldiers were not ambushed but were conducting a raid and something went
wrong!
If there was a coup Masha would be singing praises free n the rooftop because the waragenda
she is paid to shill for would be back on. The fact that the lying bitch is gnashing her teeth would suggest that the NeoCon agenda,
especially for war against Russia, has been derailed. Fuck you Masha. You suck.
This is great news! I hope the military junta smashes the CIA into little tiny pieces.
Why? Because the US military is in its most easily defeatable state ever - they haven't won a
war in generations, their generals are armchair soldiers most who have never seen combat, and
they have a fondness for massively overpriced technological pieces of MIC enriching garbage
for weapons. The CIA owns the media, and without an effective propaganda arm, the military
will only ever face another Vietnam.
On the topic of losing generals I'm reminded of Harry Truman. A couple of Truman quotes:
"It's the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform that
I plan to take apart". . ."I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of
a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to
three quarters of them would be in jail."
> It's worse now. Most generals got where they are by sucking up, not performing.
> Donald Trump is no Harry Truman, for sure.
Remember CNN? That fake MSM outlet that never tells the truth? Well, they have been skewering Kelly since he ran his mouth about that Florida
congresswoman. So have the other outlets. Huckabee-Sanders is now something of a national
joke after her comments. Kelly's shit doesn't hold up and he's been called out
repeatedly. "It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules over the
empire." Bullshit.
Look in the Twitter archives and you will find a counter-tweet for almost anything Trump
says, including one criticizing four-star general Colin Powell...
"The slogan and symbol of the campaign was similar to the German "Deutschland Über
Alles" campaign of 1933."
This is once again typical anti-German propaganda that was used to get both WWI and WWII
started, and is now being used against Putin and Russia as well as nationalists across Europe
and the Anglo world. In 1933 France still had control of the Saar and the Rhineland, Germany
was saddled with monumental war debts, and Hitler was clearly not running a campaign on the
slogan "Germany should rule the world", which is what the Anglo-Zionist narrative would have
us believe. The meaning "Über Alles" was clearly "Germany First". That means look out
for the German people first. The Weimar government clearly wasn't doing this. Call it
Hitler's "MAGA".
The real truth is that it is this same US military industrial complex who worked for
Roosevelt, Churchill, and their Zionist masters to get the second world war started, and who
now are desperate for a third. They are sadistic, murdering globalists. Hitler was a
nationalist. He never planned to rule the world the same way the Zionists already do, as is
evidenced by the never ending strife in the Middle East, and their ongoing tribal civil war
which is also being waged within the US government.
This tribal civil war is also spilling over into places like Las Vegas, which clearly is
run by the Jewish Mafia. There still is no plausible motive given for the shooting incident,
but we know that the owners of MGM would never willingly have allowed this to happen on their
own property. So it clearly was a hit, and with Area 51 down the road and all the MIC
contractors in Vegas, it is highly unlikely that they were not involved or at least aware of
the operation.
Here is a LV company where for $3500 you can fly around the desert in a Helicopter
shooting up targets with a SAW-249.
The original meaning of "Deutschland über alles" came about in the early 1800's when
there was no united Germany: it meant that there should be a united Germany above all the
minor German states, duchies and principalities that existed at the time.
For those who want to avoid being datamined by nhs, the original link about "Why Donald Trump
is the perfect tool in the hands of neocons right now" is here: https://failedevolution.blogspot.com/
"One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights"
was a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than
a dozen awards and decorations".
The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to
teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the
American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"?" It's all about the uranium in Agades, then?
Trump is either very gullible and ignorant (most likely) or he is diabolically clever.
Everything he does - every action, every appointment, every utterance - could not be better
formulated to undermine the Zioamerican empire. Which is kind of what he promised to do.
The brazen arrogance of these jerks like Kelly is stupefying. Infuriatingly shameless.
The guy has never done an honest day's work IN HIS LIFE, has had his snout in the public
trough continuously and has materially contributed to the ruination of his country. STFU you
stupid twat. He is also a scumbag that no doubt had a lot to do with his son's demise -
imagine being this a-hole's son?
These clowns call themselves "General" and we are supposed to think that puts them in the
same class as a Wellington or a Caesar or Napoleon? They were all first class bastards,
ruthless, but fine Generals. Tough, bold, audacious leaders of men and brilliant strategists,
who took risks, including with their own lives. Hell, the Prussian officer training system
turned out Quartermasters that were better field Generals than these American frauds.
As I have said in another thread, the US has none of the martial virtues. Not as a people,
not as military institutions, not as individual soldiers or sailors (their airmen are
obviously cowards or psychopaths so not necessary even to consider in this context). Virtues
such as steadfastness in adversity, discipline when under fire, self-sacrifice for comrades
and the cause. Not saying anything about the morality of any particular cause here, just what
makes a professional army. To compare the US military with Rome's Legions, say, is laughable.
The biggest difference between these American whackers is that in real armies individuals are
expected to be able to contend with a worthy adversary. To take risks. To fight when it is
HARD to fight. Even Rome's patricians understood that every now and then they had to expose
themselves to danger if they were to have any honour, as Crassus, richest of them all, found
out very dramatically when he met his end at the head of the Syrian Legions. (Defeated by the
Iranians! - they've seen 'em all come and go). Windbags like Kelly wouldn't know what honour
is.
The US has NEVER fought an adversary on anything like equal terms. They preen themselves
about WW2. I call BS. They waited until the Soviets had broken the back of the most fearsome
war machine in history, the Wehrmacht and then faced teenagers and old men in France. On the
occasions when they did face professional German troops they had their whiney arses kicked.
As for the Pacific war, they stood off island after island and rained a stupendous amount of
naval shells and bombs on the Japanese garrisons to the point where they were insane with the
cacophany and pure physical terror to turn your bowels to water, before setting foot on them,
while the aerial destruction of Japanese cities is one of the great atrocities in history,
disgraceful and completely without honour. I suspect a disproportionate number of US military
casualties are due to being run over by a forklift, training accidents, friendly fire,
syphilis or fragging of their own.
The qualities the US military (they don't deserve the epithet "army") exemplifies are
cowardice, incompetence, viciousness and wanton destructiveness. No wonder, as the corruption
(plenty of fiscal as well as moral) starts at the top with the Kellys and drips down like a
putrid slime from there.
He and his ilk are just a bunch of murderous bags of human excrement. No decent person can
have anything but contempt for them.
It is little surprise if a junta has taken over. Many Democrats would support a military
junta over Trump. Now we are hearing similar calls from Republicans.
One of the latest is this opinion piece by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post
from October 12, 2017:
Republicans, it's time to panic The Washington Examiner has a short
summary:
Michael Gerson, who's also a columnist for the Washington Post, wrote in an op-ed Friday
that "the security of our country -- and potentially the lives of millions of people abroad
-- depends on Trump being someone else entirely."
"The time for whispered criticisms and quiet snickering is over. The time for panic and
decision is upon us. The thin line of sane, responsible advisers at the White House -- such
as Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson -- could break at any moment," Gerson wrote. "The American government now has a
dangerous fragility at its very center. Its welfare is as thin as an eggshell -- perhaps as
thin as Donald Trump's skin."
The op-ed comes amid Trump's feud with Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who warned that the
president's reckless threats could lead to "World War III."
"I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it's a situation of trying
to contain him," Corker told the New York Times.
At this point in history to be US president is to be a criminal.
An "autonomous" US president has not existed at least since JFK, perhaps not since
Lincoln. Kelley, like his boss, routinely "clowns" the media, and however unctuous Kelley's remarks
are, they fit into that mode.
Our generals are weak men. If they weren't, they wouldn't need a Trump, or a whatever to
run for office and win that office.
They can't run and win any better than they can conduct warfare as a rational means to a
rational end; and as the post eloquently points out, again: they are experts at rape, murder,
war crimes, mayhem and destruction. The ubiquitous propaganda to hide that is all they have
that saves them from the penal colony where they belong.
Their project to rule the world would be as successful as any "they destroyed it in order
to save it" attempts.
MG's fragmented consciousness permit her to be rational at times, and irresponsible at
others.
re: Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom
he had maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. . .
The US needed go show progress in the "war on terror" and one way was to accumulate some
prisoners of the "war." CIA operatives were sent to the tribal areas of Afghanistan &
Pakistan with cash to entice "bounty hunters." It was easy, because every tribal chief had
enemies, which he would capture and present for a big payoff. So the Guantanamo (Gitmo)
prison was set up in Cuba and soon accumulated 7-800 "detainees" who were bullied and
tortured.
None of them were tried because there was no evidence they had done anything wrong.
The Supreme Court ruled that they should have a judicial process but (except a few cases) it
was never done. Most of the prisoners detainees were released, including a
13 yo boy and a 92 yo man, and about 200 remained. I guess it's less now.
Meanwhile the
Washington politicians were able to crow about all those dangerous people in Gitmo, and
prattle about the "recidivism" danger if and when they would be released. What were they
supposed to do, forgive and forget all the terrible treatment they had received?? So yes,
Kelly is scum, but that's not unusual for a general.
The ground work, or state-of-affairs that lead to what one might call a soft military coup in
the US (see b) = within what, at one extreme could be called Ayn-Randian rabid individualism,
and at the other a sort of neo-liberal capitalism which is nevertheless highly 'socialist' in
the sense re-distributive from the center of power (if only to create a slave/subservient
class and prevent uprisings), there is NO public space for 'solidarity' within (besides
familial, or close, etc.)
Therefore, the belonging or 'solidarity' is activated only facing an outside enemy who is
personalised as e.g. communist, ugly dictator, intends to attack the US, poisons babies, etc.
That gives the military an edge.. Then natch, historically, dying empires invest in the
double prong, military conquest + internal control (can be vicious), ain't flash news.
.... I don't think it is all that clear. Corps or better conglomerates of power like 'the
media', the 'silicons', banking and finance, Energy, electronics, Big Pharma, etc. are
politcally inclined (say!) to some form of corporate fascism, > bought pols from all-sides
of any-aisle. Their ties to the military / milit. type power at home are not very strong,
they may collaborate on occasion. Some of these 'industries' fear domination that goes beyond
soft power and they loathe sanctions - think about who/what/how is doing lucrative deals and
has continuing biz success in Iraq, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, etc. - NOT US cos./corps.
To me this looks more like total disorganisation than anything else.
First, if the only two choices were the Executive CIA and the Military "Junta" with Trump
why would we continue the farce of elections? And if the elections were pre-determined and
the ruling Junta took over in a coup, then how and why is the CIA out of power?
Secondly, same question will be here for you when a) the military and Trump get booted
with impeachment, or b) when the next election comes.
Van Morrison once penned "politics, superstition and religion go hand in hand." It never
fails, those out of power go from being logical, critical thinkers to becoming outlandish
bores who exaggerate things and fabricate what they see. It's called delusion.
@J 49 The "farce of elections" is accurate because Trump is not doing what he claimed he would do,
not unusual actually. It was Trump who sprang the "junta" on us. And who claimed that the CIA
would be out of power?
Kelly: So why were they there? They're there working with partners, local -- all across
Africa -- in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better
soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights
These guys didn't die teaching, nor in combat in Niger, they were (according to news
reports) trying to track down an accomplice of one Abu Adnan al-Sahraoui. In other words they
were doing police work in a foreign country, an absolutely ridiculous task which they were
not trained or able to do and which put their lives needlessly in danger. This criticism
applies to the whole "war on terror" which has proven to be a tragic farce (if there can be
such a thing).
I used to think it was a counter-coup also. But sheep-dog Sanders and Trump's having
supported Hillary in 2008 among other things caused me to conclude that it all
bullshit. I now believe that the hyper-partisanship is just a show. The political system in the
US is designed to prevent any real populist from gaining power. We are being played. Trump is the Republican Obama.
I really think that this is the case in this instance. Trump is bellicose and erratic. In
the realm of foreign policy and military, it yielded one positive change: his obsession with
ISIS led to huge decrease of fighting between "moderate opposition" in Syria with "SAA and
allies", allowing the latter to effectively reduce the territory controlled by ISIS,
similarly, Obama's efforts to sideline "sectarian forces trained by Iran" from fighting with
ISIS were apparently abandoned with similar effect. But otherwise, no "reset" with Russia,
clown show concerning the nuclear program of North Korea, berating allies who spend
insufficiently to fight threats that they do not have, increasing domestic military budget
(again, to fight threats that we do not have) and so on. Formation of the new axis of evil,
North Korea, Iran and Venezuela is a notable novelty.
Trump was so contradictory is his campaign statements that it is almost amazing that ANY
positive element can be discerned. At the time, I paid attention to his praises of John
Bolton, a proud walrus-American who communicates using bellowing, in other words, resembles a
walrus both in the way he looks, but also in the way he speaks.
Needless to say, Dotard in Chief can exercise power only through underlings that may try
to make sense of what he says. In some cases, like reforming American healthcare according to
his promises, this is flatly impossible. So generals are seemingly in the same position, and
of course, when in doubt, they do what they would do anyway.
Not that I am any more or less in the loop than any of these fine commenters, but what pops
into my mind when reading of the ambush of the four special forces servicemen is the crash of
the helicopter that took out so many of the seal team six who supposedly took out Osama.
Maybe they knew too much would be my guess. Why else would they put such a knowledgable
specialist out on the perimeter? Makes no sense. Offing your own is part and parcel in the
military. Heroes of convenience.
What seems to have been lost in the discussion is what exactly the "counter-coup" is all
about.
1. During the Obama years, "successes" like Lybia and Ukraine were matched by "failures"
like the lost proxy war for Syria and pushing Russia into the arms of China. The new 'Cold
War' makes US nationalism more important as 'hot' conflicts become more likely.
2. Obama/Clinton-led civilian authority was abusing power to promote an "Empire-first"
vision of governance, Obama/Clinton:
>> replaced/retired many military officers;
>> placed US resources/forces in a support role ("leading from behind")
;
>> grew a 'radical center' (aka "Third Way") that sought to undermine traditional
nationalist/patriotism via immigration and divisive 'wedge issues'.
The excuse for this was that while US hands were tied (because public wouldn't support
further adventurism after Iraq) close allies could push forward. But the new Cold War has
changed the calculus.
The US isn't giving up on Empire. It's just a different type of Empire for a different
type of environment. When Trump talks about "draining the swamp" I think he merely refers to
foreign influence.
So Trump pivots US policy based on Obama's record (as Obama did off Bush's record), and
the next President will pivot off Trump's record, but the direction is always the same.
Trump has one ally and that is the 65million voters who put him into office.
He surrendered his top people.
Saker says it was lack of character.
I think when they point the gun at you, your family, your closest friends in your life, you
acquiesce. They even took from him Keith Schiller, his personal security man for years. Kelly forced
him out of the WH.
Trump is powerless except when he functions as Leader of the rallies. As President, even
with the cabal running the Oval Office, they all are limited by the Shadow Government, Deep
State, IC, Khazarian Matrix. No President is a free man empowered to act.
He now is focused on what is possible. Perhaps that will be a tax cut and a few more SC
justices and a few score of judges for the fed district courts. Those don't interfere with
Financial Power and MIC and the Hegemony of Empire.
There is one hope. Putin + Xi.
And we know the limits they face.
Inside the Tyranny of American government, there is no hope. During the Trump time Putin
and Xi have to make the most of the Swamp creating their own problems. It is that moment of
opportunity, though it looks bleak.
One thing for certain, the US military does not want a direct war. It wants more of these
terror conflicts. Africa will become huge over the next few years. Graham is already selling
it big. Trillions of dollars is what is the goal.
SE Asia and Africa are the new big "markets" for MIC. ISIS/AQ are the product. War is the
service industry being sold as the "solution".
The Long War of anti-terror is the scam Smedley Butler told us about in the thirties.
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not
what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It
is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over
here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns
6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the
flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the
bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and
the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has
its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men"
to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels
me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of
this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned
ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my
time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In
short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the
members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service.
My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups.
This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I
helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues
in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of
Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in
1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic
for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went
its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.
Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could
do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
On the bright side, members of Congress are at least nominally elected. Four star Generals,
not so much. It's still a felony carrying a prison term of 5 to 10 years per incident to lie
to Congress.
The military have no precedent to recommend them either as a source of information or in
their decision making ability. They are way out of their depth when it comes to administering
a nation.
In none of their unwarranted invasions (all the result of bad information and poor judgment)
of other nations have they been successful the day after the bombs stopped falling.
IDIOTS!!! you forget the fact that if clinton won you would first be glowing GREEN and now
dead. On Oct 16th 2016 Putin said "if hillary wins its WW3" on you tube. guess what we are
alive and have to deal with that taxevader trump. we will survive!
The time has long passed since one can ignore JFK's failed insistence on the inspections
of the illegal Israeli nuclear weapons program at Dimona, and then his sudden death.
Factoring Israel into the equation greatly simplifies understanding the make-up of the Warren
Commission, LBJ's about turn on the relation to the illegal nuclear weapons program and his
reaction to the attack on the Liberty, and the evolution of US politics more generally.
One would be more pressed to argue why one thinks it is not a primary cause.
We voted for change and as usual, we got more of the same. All I can say is thank God it's
not Hillary in the White House. At least Trump's not spoiling for a war with Russia.
Democracy has been dead in America for a long time. I'd rather Kelly run the country than
Hillary Clinton. She would have us all annihilated in a war with Russia and China
It's going to be hard to fight a junta. The military is at least halfway competent, something
that can't be said for either the administration or congress. Look at this latest flap - on
the one side you have Wilson the rodeo clown, on the other you have Trump, who can't resist
the urge to pop off on twitter.
Then you have Kelly, who at least comes off like an adult.
Before people start pointing to all the nefarious things the military is doing, let me just
say I'm talking about perception.
Good post sans the Africa bit. They are having a tough time explaining the Niger debacle
to people. I don't think African conflicts have the same glamorous draw as MENA conflicts.
Once the economy goes to shit, it will be an even tougher sell.
Trump is walking a narrow line. He has not brought us into a war with either Russia or
NoKo...yet. This deserves some praise. The media blitz against Trump has always had a twofold
reasoning behind it: it puts pressure on his ego to acquiesce and, two, if he doesn't, the
public has been inoculated against feeling too bad when a lone-gunmen puts a bullet in his
brain. I guess if you believe that, as I do, it explains why even a bumbling policy is a
positive aspect of a Trump presidency, instead of the true-believer approach from Hillary and
her ilk. There really is no other choice. It's either war or watch the empire crumble. The
true believers might have chosen the former, but President Trump, I believe, has sabotaged
that possibility. So take all the Trump-bashers in here with a grain or salt. They are asking
for the stars, but watching the empire's police implode suits me just fine.
"But the white supremacists...KKK!" What a fucking joke.
Moon of Alabama always writes interesting and insightful critiques of the Deep State, the
military, and the imperialist/war party, but falls flat on his face in his naive faith in the
supposed anti-establishment, populist, and America First Nationalist proclivities of Donald
Trump, and his arch-reactionary Svengali Steve Bannon. There is indeed at least one major
split in the ranks of the ruling class, but to present Trump and Bannon as either valiant
figures struggling for the national good, or noble isolated men surrounded by vipers and
traitors is absurd.
Now, in its late imperial decline, the U.S. has become unable to continue to exercise
hegemony, the way it became accustomed to in the first 70+ years in the Post-WW 2 period. The
number one Client/Ally/Master, Israel and their deeply embedded 5th Column in the U.S., the
Zionists with their associated Pro-Zionist factions within the War Party, now nearly directly
and openly controls U.S. foreign policy and military actions in the regions that the Likudnik
faction in Israel cares about (i.e. the Levant, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa).
Hollowed out economically and industrially the U.S. Empire is clearly on the way out. The
various factions fighting for control of policy seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. The
actual situation is similar to that the U.S. participated in during period from the late
1800s - WW 2; the declining hegemon accustomed to calling the shots in international affairs
(then the British Empire, now the U.S.), ends up overextended and committed in far too many
areas, with declining resources and domestic solidarity to dedicate to the tasks; the rising
hegemon (then the U.S. now China) is still focused on issues of internal and external
economic development and the exercise of regional power. China is already either equal in
power to the U.S. or more powerful and will only continue to grow in power as the U.S.
continues to decline. The Israelis/Zionists fully realize that the U.S. would not survive
another disastrous war (like the air war they want the U.S. to wage against Iran, the U.S.
does not have the capability to conduct a land war against Iran) intact. They are willing to
try to force the issue to achieve one more step in their plan to establish "Eretz Israel"
whose territory would extend from the Nile to the Euphrates and from the Sinai to Turkey.
Their plans are just as crazy as those of the NeoCons and the NeoLiberals and their endless
disastrous wars; and Trump/Bannon are their agents in the U.S.
Muller just sinks credibility of the US government to a new low exposing the internal fight
between CIA/FBI and Pentagon for the control of the government. All this dirt digging is so
highly selective, that the whole purpose if his investigation can be defined as "Discrediting of
the US government and its institutions". The role of FBI now (notwisting nik in
twitter is very similar to the role of CIA in JFK assassination: suspected kingmaker, which tried
to control Trump campaign and was ready top pay Steele. Excluding DNC officiels form probe mean
selective search for truth, which is a search for lies.
There are also serious questions about Papadopoulos's credibility. So far he emerges as a
young, reckless and clueless political huckster. And where was General Flynt with his
experience intelligence operations. He should understand that all Trump operation is under the
microaope of Obmam-fireldly officiels in the administration including such a powerful figure as
Brennan.
Also why the heck we have Papadopoulos as a source, when we have NSA and clear evidence that
key Trump officials were all wiretapped.
Notable quotes:
"... However, Mifsud told The Washington Post in an email last August that he had "absolutely no contact with the Russian government" and described his ties to Russia as strictly in academic fields. ..."
"... In an interview with the U.K. Daily Telegraph after Monday's disclosures, Mifsud acknowledged meeting with Papadopoulos but disputed the contents of the conversations as cited in the court papers. Specifically, he denied knowing anything about emails containing "dirt" on Clinton and called the claim that he introduced Papadopoulos to a "female Russian national" as a "laughingstock." ..."
"... The absence of supporting evidence that Papadopoulos conveyed his hot news on the emails to campaign officials and Mifsud's insistence that he knew nothing about the emails would normally raise serious questions about Papadopoulos's credibility on this most crucial point. ..."
"... At least for now, those gaps represent major holes in the storyline. But Official Washington has been so desperate for "proof" about the alleged Russian "election meddling" for so long, that professional skepticism has been unwelcome in most media outlets. ..."
"... But the source said the more perplexing question was whether the Kremlin then ordered release of the data, something that Russian intelligence is usually loath to do and something that in this case would have risked retaliation from the expected winner of the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... But such questions and doubts are clearly not welcome in the U.S. mainstream media, most of which has embraced Mueller's acceptance of Papadopoulos's story as the long-awaited "smoking gun" of Russia-gate. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... Where are Podesta brothers? http://theduran.com/category/latest/ They both are extremely relevant and, unlike the petty story on the hapless chap Papadopolous, Podesta brothers' involvement into lobbying for Russia and Ukraine is well documented. The involvement had been substantial. Also, why no news about Awan-Wasserman affai, the greatest breach in national cybersecurity ever? ..."
"... Where is Mueller on the death of Seth Rich? The Dems have never provided any reward for finding the murderers of Seth (Assange did), but the Dems found money & legal help to protect Awan & Debbie Wasseman. As you wrote, "once again," the deciders are on a side of murderers, perverts, and thieves (see Clinton foundation and the $6 trillion "lost" by the Pentagon). ..."
"... No, I believe the whole Russiagate brouhaha is a sham, and if Russia did meddle in our politics, it is hypocritical of us who are far worse. I think the article I read recently by Stephen Cohen that we have meddled in over a hundred countries and continue to do so while appearing shocked that someone would do that to us, in the event that is what happened. ..."
"... In October 2016, Wikileaks released emails that revealed Donna Brazile tipped off the Clinton Campaign to debate questions and forwarded a plan she obtained from the Bernie Sanders campaign to the Clinton Campaign. CNN fired Brazile after the revelation, but the DNC has continued employing Brazile as a consultant." You see, DNC continues employing Brazile as a consultant in crime. ..."
"... There are no good players in any of this. I don't even think this quarrel has anything to do with the average American. This is a fight going on inside of a declining American government. The Empire is collapsing all around these greedy fools who call themselves leaders, and when the dollar does become just another piece of worthless paper, it won't be the fault of anyone other than the current leaders who now run the USofA. ..."
"... The "crucial gap" in evidence relates to allegation that the DNC hack was an inside job by a disillusioned Bernie Sanders supporter. However, the revelations about Seth Rich provide damning (if hearsay) evidence that the DNC ordered his execution. ..."
"... Murder of Seth Rich? Podesta brothers popping up at each step of the investigation as the lobbyists "colluding" with both Russia and Ukraine? Clinton Foundation and the lethal weaponry sales to Saudis? The CIA-arranged delivery of weapons to ISIS on Clinton's watch? http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/ https://www.globalresearch.ca/logistics-101-where-does-isis-get-its-guns/5454726 The Uranium deal with Russia? – Including the $500.000 "speech fee" for the promiscuous Bill – remember Lolita Island, Dershowitz, and Epstein? ..."
"... The U.S. has been openly invading and destroying countries, involved in overthrowing elected leaders – sometimes have them murdered – engaged in destabilizing the countries for regime changes, interfering in their elections, for seven decades now. Have they forgotten what they did in 1996 Russia election and to Russia during 1990's. And here we are discussing a thirty year old Papadopoulos meeting some obscure professor discussing Russia or whatever; and we are endlessly discussing Hillary- Podesta and DNC emails – who leaked it? How low this country has come down to? Can't we see it? ..."
"... It is a shameful spectacle we are witnessing in this Country. One feels feels sick reading and hearing about about this whole trivial nonsense. Yet the whole Political Establishment and Media are drenched in this sewage for over a year now. No words can describe the complete moral collapse of the Country; collapse of integrity of institutions of law and justice – whatever was left of it. There is no honesty, truth or dignity left – in Journalists and others in Media, Politicians, and other high government functionaries. ..."
"... We are beginning to see the disgust for the people running the US government by many citizens like yourself. ..."
"... George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy resources. ..."
"... The "online investigations" propaganda operation at Bellingcat site very much includes the comments section of the site. Don't expect Bellingcat to perform any actual journalism or substantive investigation. The function of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat site is to serve as a propaganda channel for "fake news" and "alternative facts". ..."
"... Paul Manafort was indicted for supposedly establishing a relationship with a foreign government that was not covered by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). ..."
"... Speaking of FARA, when is someone in the US government or the totally corrupted and bought-off US Congress going to demand that Israel and AIPAC be registered under FARA? And then: When will investigations begin into some of the truly treasonous acts and legislation shepherded by this foreign agent called AIPAC: -- like its interference with Free Speech protections in the US Bill of Rights, and this latest: Something about residents of some town in Texas forced to sign a loyalty pledge in support of Israel in order to receive funds to rebuild their stricken landscape ??? Is Israel putting up the money for disaster relief projects in America? If so, how did this come about? ..."
Exclusive: The U.S. mainstream media finally has its "smoking gun" on Russia-gate --
incriminating information from a junior Trump campaign adviser -- but a closer look reveals
serious problems with the "evidence," writes Robert Parry.
Russia-gate special prosecutor Robert Mueller has turned up the heat on President Trump with
the indictment of Trump's former campaign manager for unrelated financial crimes and the
disclosure of a guilty plea from a low-level foreign policy adviser for lying to the FBI.
While longtime Republican fixer Paul Manafort, who helped guide Trump's campaign to the GOP
nomination in summer 2016, was the big name in the news on Monday, the mainstream media focused
more on court documents related to George Papadopoulos, a 30-year-old campaign aide who claims
to have heard about Russia possessing Hillary Clinton's emails before they became public on the
Internet, mostly via WikiLeaks.
While that would seem to bolster the Russia-gate narrative – that Russian intelligence
"hacked" Democratic emails and President Vladimir Putin ordered the emails be made public to
undermine Clinton's campaign – the evidentiary thread that runs through Papadopoulos's
account remains tenuous.
That's in part because his credibility has already been undermined by his guilty plea for
lying to the FBI and by the fact that he now has a motive to provide something the prosecutors
might want in exchange for leniency. Plus, there is the hearsay and contested quality of
Papadopoulos's supposed information, some of which already has turned out to be false.
According to the court documents, Papadopoulos got to know a professor of international
relations who claimed to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials," with
the professor identified in press reports as Joseph Mifsud, a little-known academic associated
with the University of Stirling in Scotland.
The first contact supposedly occurred in mid-March 2016 in Italy, with a second meeting in
London on March 24 when the professor purportedly introduced Papadopoulos to a Russian woman
whom the young campaign aide believed to be Putin's niece, an assertion that Mueller's
investigators determined wasn't true.
Trump, who then was under pressure for not having a foreign policy team, included
Papadopoulos as part of a list drawn up to fill that gap, and Papadopoulos participated in a
campaign meeting on March 31 in Washington at which he suggested a meeting between Trump and
Putin, a prospect that other senior aides reportedly slapped down.
The 'Email' Breakfast
But Papadopoulos continued
his outreach to Russia , according to the court documents, which depict the most explosive
meeting as an April 26 breakfast in London with the professor (Mifsud) supposedly saying he had
been in Moscow and "learned that the Russians had obtained 'dirt' on then-candidate Clinton"
and possessed "thousands of emails." Mainstream press accounts concluded that Mifsud must have
been referring to the later-released emails.
However, Mifsud told The Washington Post in an email last August that he had "absolutely no
contact with the Russian government" and described his ties to Russia as strictly in academic
fields.
In an
interview with the U.K. Daily Telegraph after Monday's disclosures, Mifsud acknowledged
meeting with Papadopoulos but disputed the contents of the conversations as cited in the court
papers. Specifically, he denied knowing anything about emails containing "dirt" on Clinton and
called the claim that he introduced Papadopoulos to a "female Russian national" as a
"laughingstock."
According to the Telegraph
interview , Mifsud said he tried to put Papadopoulos in touch with experts on the European
Union and introduced him to the director of a Russian think tank, the Russian International
Affairs Council.
It was the latter contact that the court papers presumably referred to in saying that on May
4, the Russian contact with ties to the foreign ministry wrote to Papadopoulos and Mifsud,
reporting that ministry officials were "open for cooperation," a message that Papadopoulos
forwarded to a senior campaign official, asking whether the contacts were "something we want to
move forward with."
However, even an article in The New York Times, which has aggressively pushed the
Russia-gate "scandal" from the beginning, noted the evidentiary holes that followed from that
point.
The Times' Scott Shane
wrote : "A crucial detail is still missing: Whether and when Mr. Papadopoulos told senior
Trump campaign officials about Russia's possession of hacked emails. And it appears that the
young aide's quest for a deeper connection with Russian officials, while he aggressively
pursued it, led nowhere."
Shane added, "the court documents describe in detail how Mr. Papadopoulos continued to
report to senior campaign officials on his efforts to arrange meetings with Russian officials,
the documents do not say explicitly whether, and to whom, he passed on his most explosive
discovery – that the Russians had what they considered compromising emails on Mr. Trump's
opponent.
"J.D. Gordon, a former Pentagon official who worked for the Trump campaign as a national
security adviser and helped arrange the March 31 foreign policy meeting, said he had known
nothing about Mr. Papadopoulos' discovery that Russia had obtained Democratic emails or of his
prolonged pursuit of meetings with Russians."
Reasons to Doubt
If prosecutor Mueller had direct evidence that Papadopoulos had informed the Trump campaign
about the Clinton emails, you would assume that the proof would have been included in Monday's
disclosures. Further, since Papadopoulos was flooding the campaign with news about his Russian
outreach, you might have expected that he would say something about how helpful the Russians
had been in publicizing the Democratic emails.
The absence of supporting evidence that Papadopoulos conveyed his hot news on the emails
to campaign officials and Mifsud's insistence that he knew nothing about the emails would
normally raise serious questions about Papadopoulos's credibility on this most crucial
point.
At least for now, those gaps represent major holes in the storyline. But Official
Washington has been so desperate for "proof" about the alleged Russian "election meddling" for
so long, that professional skepticism has been unwelcome in most media outlets.
There is also another side of the story that rarely gets mentioned in the U.S. mainstream
media: that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has repeatedly denied that he received the two
batches of purloined Democratic emails – one about the Democratic National Committee and
one about Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta – from the Russians. While it is
surely possible that the Russians might have used cutouts to pass on the emails, Assange and
associates have suggested that at least the DNC emails came from a disgruntled insider.
Also, former U.S. intelligence experts have
questioned whether at least one batch of disclosed emails could have come from an overseas
"hack" because the rapid download speed is more typical of copying files locally onto a memory
stick or thumb drive.
What I was told by an intelligence source several months ago was that Russian intelligence
did engage in hacking efforts to uncover sensitive information, much as U.S. and other nations'
intelligence services do, and that Democratic targets were included in the Russian effort.
But the source said the more perplexing question was whether the Kremlin then ordered
release of the data, something that Russian intelligence is usually loath to do and something
that in this case would have risked retaliation from the expected winner of the 2016 election,
Hillary Clinton.
But such questions and doubts are clearly not welcome in the U.S. mainstream media, most
of which has embraced Mueller's acceptance of Papadopoulos's story as the long-awaited "smoking
gun" of Russia-gate.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Herman , October 31, 2017 at 12:57 pm
Once again. Trump voluntarily jumps into the hot seat by trying to discredit or dismiss
the importance of someone who worked for him. This tactic may appeal to his committed
supporters but only sets himself up since his claims and statements about the irrelevance of
Papadopolous can be disproved. What he should be after is the truth about the emails
It is amazing how often people get charged with lying by being made to believe that not
doing so would get them in trouble. The thing they lie about is very often not his crime but
the lying. , .
Anna , October 31, 2017 at 1:21 pm
Where are Podesta brothers? http://theduran.com/category/latest/ They both are
extremely relevant and, unlike the petty story on the hapless chap Papadopolous, Podesta
brothers' involvement into lobbying for Russia and Ukraine is well documented. The
involvement had been substantial.
Also, why no news about Awan-Wasserman affai, the greatest breach in national cybersecurity
ever?
Where is Mueller on the death of Seth Rich? The Dems have never provided any reward for
finding the murderers of Seth (Assange did), but the Dems found money & legal help to
protect Awan & Debbie Wasseman. As you wrote, "once again," the deciders are on a side of
murderers, perverts, and thieves (see Clinton foundation and the $6 trillion "lost" by the
Pentagon).
What we see currently in DC is an attack of the Dulles' CIA against whatever has left of a
rule of law in this country. The RussiaGate is a dangerous play (not even a game) by the spoiled and incompetent "deciders"
who found Trump unpalatable.
Back in the USSR , October 31, 2017 at 1:33 pm
Herman If the Clinton Campaign and the DNC can claim that they have no memory of
how the Fusion GPS opposition research was funded, for millions of dollars, then why isn't it
just as plausible that Trump had little or no contact or interaction with a low level staffer
like Papadopoulos? Last week we heard that it does not matter who funded Fusion GPS because
it is normal for campaigns to do opposition research even if it was from Russia. Yet, when
Trump Jr. took a meeting to do the same, it was labeled Treason. I imagine these
idiosyncrasies don't phase the average liberal MSM consumer, but they are a problem for Trump
supporters and a good reason why they voted him into the White House.
Herman , October 31, 2017 at 5:52 pm
I agree with you, it's just that I think Trump is wrong in attacking members of his staff
or cabinet. Let someone else do that. Discrediting people has worked but with Trump the
immediate response is focus on him and it doesn't help by attacking your own.
No, I believe
the whole Russiagate brouhaha is a sham, and if Russia did meddle in our politics, it is
hypocritical of us who are far worse. I think the article I read recently by Stephen Cohen
that we have meddled in over a hundred countries and continue to do so while appearing
shocked that someone would do that to us, in the event that is what happened.
Herman,
"It is amazing how often people get charged with lying by being made to believe that not
doing so would get them in trouble. The thing they lie about is very often not his crime but
the lying. ",,,very true, Bill Clinton's meaning of the word "is" comes to mind. As far as
the source of "Russian hacking" is concerned it appears that it may come down to academic
gossip.
In October 2016, Wikileaks released emails that revealed Donna Brazile
tipped off the Clinton Campaign to debate questions and forwarded a plan she obtained from
the Bernie Sanders campaign to the Clinton Campaign. CNN fired Brazile after the revelation,
but the DNC has continued employing Brazile as a consultant."
You see, DNC continues employing Brazile as a consultant in crime.
Then it was that the Washington Free Beacon, a neocon website, engaged a firm of researchers
called Fusion GPS to do deep dirt-diving into Trump's personal and professional life -- and
take him out. A spinoff of Bill Kristol's The Weekly Standard, the Beacon is run by his
son-in-law. And its Daddy Warbucks is the GOP oligarch and hedge fund billionaire Paul
Singer.
From October 2015 to May 2016, Fusion GPS dug up dirt for the neocons and never-Trumpers. By
May, however, Trump had routed all rivals and was the certain Republican nominee. So the
Beacon bailed, and Fusion GPS found two new cash cows to finance its dirt-diving -- the DNC
and the Clinton campaign. To keep the sordid business at arm's length, both engaged the
party's law firm of Perkins Coie. Paid $12.4 million by the DNC and Clinton campaign, Perkins
used part of this cash hoard to pay Fusion GPS.
Here is where it begins to get interesting.
In June 2016, Fusion GPS engaged a British spy, Christopher Steele, who had headed up the
Russia desk at MI6, to ferret out any connections between Trump and Russia. Steele began
contacting old acquaintances in the FSB, the Russian intelligence service. And the Russians
began to feed him astonishing dirt on Trump that could, if substantiated, kill his candidacy.
Among the allegations was that Trump had consorted with prostitutes at a Moscow hotel, that
the Kremlin was blackmailing him, that there was provable collusion between the Trump
campaign and Russia.
In memos from June to October 2016, Steele passed this on to Fusion GPS, which passed it on
to major U.S. newspapers. But as the press was unable to verify it, they declined to publish
it. Steele's final product, a 35-page dossier, has been described as full of "unsubstantiated
and salacious allegations." Steele's research, however, had also made its way to James
Comey's FBI, which was apparently so taken with it that the bureau considered paying Steele
to continue his work.
About this "astonishing" development, columnist Byron York of the Washington Examiner quotes
Sen. Chuck Grassley:
"The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to
investigate the Republican nominee for president in the run-up to the election raises
questions about the FBI's independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration's
use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends."
The questions begin to
pile up.
What was the FBI's relationship with the British spy who was so wired into Russian
intelligence?
Did the FBI use the information Steele dug up to expand its own investigation of Russia-Trump
"collusion"? Did the FBI pass what Steele unearthed to the White House and the National
Security Council?
Did the Obama administration use the information from the Steele dossier to justify unmasking
the names of Trump officials that had been picked up on legitimate electronic intercepts?
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta
and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed they did not know that Perkins Coie had
enlisted Fusion GPS or the British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. Yet, when Podesta testified,
the lawyer sitting beside him in the committee room was Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, who had
engaged Fusion GPS and received the fruits of Steele's undercover work."
One more time: "Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz
claimed they did not know that Perkins Coie had enlisted Fusion GPS or the British spy to dig
up dirt on Trump. Yet, when Podesta testified, the lawyer sitting beside him in the committee
room was Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, who had engaged Fusion GPS and received the fruits of
Steele's undercover work."
Is not this look much more compromising than an alleged involvement something the clueless
Papadopolous?
Podesta brothers and H. Clinton are criminals; there are mounds of evidence -- not
"alleged" and "perhaps" and "with high degree of confidence" -- but the hard evidence of
their criminal activities.
Dave P. , October 31, 2017 at 3:06 pm
Anna – Excellent comments. Very accurate conclusions.
Anna, all your points are well taken,,,nice job of connecting the dots!
Joe Tedesky , October 31, 2017 at 4:18 pm
Anna you write it better than most reporters do, and yes it is amazing to how these
allegations in the Russia-Gate affair trumps the hard evidence found in the Hillary and Bill
pay for play kick back collusion with the Russians. Although, if you keep the channel dial on
CNN or MSNBC you may be put under the spell that Trump is a traitor, and guilty as charged of
treason in the court of public opinion which holds court on the 45th president nightly if you
care to watch. On the other hand if you watch FOX you will certainly start screaming 'lock
her up'. I personally find Hillary and Bill guilty of bribery in regard to their Uranium One
dealings, and I find her security breach inexcusable for what she did with her private
computer servers. I also can't get over how Crowd Strike took preference over the FBI to
examine Hillary's bleached hard drives in her illegally used computers. Then we have the
Trump people looking like a celebrity autograph hound standing at the wrong stage door exit
waiting to get their play program signed, only to miss their favorite celebrity, because of
course they were waiting at the wrong door. In fact the more that comes out about how Trump's
people tried to get something on Hillary from the Russians, the more foolish they look for
even trying.
There are no good players in any of this. I don't even think this quarrel has anything to
do with the average American. This is a fight going on inside of a declining American
government. The Empire is collapsing all around these greedy fools who call themselves
leaders, and when the dollar does become just another piece of worthless paper, it won't be
the fault of anyone other than the current leaders who now run the USofA.
Skip Edwards , October 31, 2017 at 8:29 pm
Yes, the goods are in and you called it like it is; our government is, and has been,
corrupt over many many Presidential Administrations and Congresses. The UNITED STATES is a
failed experiment in democracy and we have but ourselves to blame. A citizenry who takes no
interest or responsibility for Tha actions of its government deserves to die. The funeral is
not far off if anyone is remaining to attend, and this time learn from history. In the
meantime let's put all these people in jail; starting with the Clinton's.
Kalen , October 31, 2017 at 5:02 pm
Also and most importantly he should be after what was in those emails which describe
criminal acts, collusion, coercion and overall corruption in DNC for which many heads already
rolled after they were politically guillotined. Selective search for truth is a search for lies.
John Kirsch , October 31, 2017 at 1:12 pm
Excellent article.
Danny Weil , October 31, 2017 at 1:23 pm
This gets dirtier and dirtier everyday.
As an attorney, I can tell you that eyewitness testimony is the worst testimony you can
have, for various reasons:
1. People often mistake what they see (Watch 12 Angry Men from 1959, this is a good
example)
2. People lie for their own self interests
Without corroborating evidence, in the form of either circumstantial or direct, it is hard
to believe what is being put out.
But it is important to note that all good critical thinking requires an openness to new
evidence.
This being said, flipping the young aide is not enough.
irina , October 31, 2017 at 5:14 pm
Critical thinking is in short supply these days. I just dropped a class (supposedly) on
Circumpolar Social Issues,
because the professor told me that 'the class was geared to young adults' and she did not
expect them to engage
in critical thinking, what she was actually looking for was 'condensed regurgitation of the
text'. (She used those
exact words, which I had used previously to call her out on her abysmally awful exam). Yikes
! I had no idea there
was an age requirement for critical thinking ! (I found my young kids to be quite good at it,
and kept them out of
school so they wouldn't lose that capacity.)
When people end up in social media bubbles, they are engaging with a 'mirror-feedback
effect', which disallows
the openness to new evidence required for critical thinking. What we used to call a Catch-22
of sorts . . .
Dave P. , October 31, 2017 at 8:12 pm
Danny Weil –
Yes. We watched 12 Angry Men starring Henry Fonda just two weeks ago. Both, one and two of
your comments, very true and relevant in this case.
irina , October 31, 2017 at 9:38 pm
We performed that play in high school in about 1970 (the 12 Angry Women version, as there
were lots more
females than males interested in being in it). With simple staging, we were able to take it
to other area high
schools for performance. Would be a good play to resurrect ! (With a name change to 12 Angry
Citizens).
Michael , October 31, 2017 at 1:29 pm
Robert, you have done so much excellent reporting. And you are of course right to be
skeptical -- and you raise good questions. But man, doubt should be a screen not a hammer.
You write like a defense attorney rather than pursuer of the truth.
Might the Russia/Trump case be overstated? Yes. But it is getting harder and harder to
dismiss it.
with respect,
mike k , October 31, 2017 at 3:02 pm
It wasn't hard for any truthful person to refute the shabby russiagate lies. Why at you
having a problem doing that Michael?
Jonathan Marshall , October 31, 2017 at 1:30 pm
The "crucial gap" in evidence relates to alleged Russian collusion with the Trump
campaign. However, the revelations about Papadopolous provide damning (if hearsay) evidence
that Russia was behind the email hacking.
Back in the USSR , October 31, 2017 at 1:41 pm
/The "crucial gap" in evidence relates to alleged Russian collusion with the Trump
campaign. However, the revelations about Papadopolous provide damning (if hearsay) evidence
that Russia was behind the email hacking./
Er, hmm, okay
The "crucial gap" in evidence relates to allegation that the DNC hack was an inside job by
a disillusioned Bernie Sanders supporter. However, the revelations about Seth Rich provide
damning (if hearsay) evidence that the DNC ordered his execution.
Please take your "damning (hearsay) evidence somewhere else. There is NO evidence whatever
of Russia hacking anything that has been presented – just slurs and innuendos. This
site puts a premium on real EVIDENCE.
Dave P. , October 31, 2017 at 3:43 pm
Jonathan Marshall –
The U.S. has been openly invading and destroying countries, involved in overthrowing
elected leaders – sometimes have them murdered – engaged in destabilizing the
countries for regime changes, interfering in their elections, for seven decades now. Have
they forgotten what they did in 1996 Russia election and to Russia during 1990's. And here we
are discussing a thirty year old Papadopoulos meeting some obscure professor discussing
Russia or whatever; and we are endlessly discussing Hillary- Podesta and DNC emails –
who leaked it? How low this country has come down to? Can't we see it?
It is a shameful spectacle we are witnessing in this Country. One feels feels sick reading
and hearing about about this whole trivial nonsense. Yet the whole Political Establishment
and Media are drenched in this sewage for over a year now. No words can describe the complete
moral collapse of the Country; collapse of integrity of institutions of law and justice
– whatever was left of it. There is no honesty, truth or dignity left – in
Journalists and others in Media, Politicians, and other high government functionaries.
Dave P, I like and share this big picture view. I do value sites like this (and quality of
comment like this) to show it up. The hollowness of the mainstream shell game is being seen
by more and more people. The good news is that if we see that the shell game is a losing game
we're outside of it. Those "outsiders" are free, if the can grasp hold of it.
irina , October 31, 2017 at 5:16 pm
Judy Woodruff is among the worst offenders. I can't stand to watch/listen to her
anymore.
Is it true that she is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations ? I read that
somewhere.
Skip Edwards , October 31, 2017 at 8:40 pm
We are beginning to see the disgust for the people running the US government by many
citizens like yourself. Can "we" salvage enough to keep "our" country whole; or, does this
have to be an end but with a new beginning. Maybe a court of law prosecuting the entire
bunch, Democrats and Republicans, for crimes against humanity, aka war crimes, and crimes
against its citizenry, aka embezzlement, can save "us." The other two branches have certainly failed"us."
Abe , October 31, 2017 at 1:49 pm
George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing Israeli
political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy resources.
Papadopoulos' LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute.
The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security
policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.
The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the
neoconservative think tank in 2014. In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications. In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist
movement embraced by the Israeli "settler" movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should
focus on its "stalwart allies" Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to "contain the newly emergent
Russian fleet".
In another op-ed published in Ha'aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit
its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.
In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the
export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government
officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.
Israel's coming planned military assault on Lebanon and Syria has a lot to do with natural
gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights
region.
Among its numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242, Israel annexed the Syrian
Golan Heights in 1981.
Engdahl notes "we might find ourselves in another war for oil in of all places the Golan
Heights, this one a war involving Syria, Russia, Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah on one side and
Israel and Rex Tillerson's 68 nation 'anti-ISIS coalition' on the other side, another
senseless war over control of oil."
Abe , October 31, 2017 at 2:06 pm
"US policymakers have stated multiple times that before war with Iran can be pursued
directly, both Syria and Hezbollah must be weakened first. A war with Lebanon thus could be a
means to either directly lead into direct conflict with Tehran, or as a means of preparing
for one in the near or intermediate future.
"Immediate Peace and Stability vs. Constant and Perpetual War
"What is clear is that the 2015 Russian intervention in Syria along with Iran's growing
influence in the region has rolled back attempts by the US and its partners to reassert
control over the Middle East they have sought since the Cold War. With a new multipolar
coalition of emerging regional and global powers, US dreams of hegemony will be increasingly
more difficult to achieve [ ]
"Lebanon has been a battlefield in the past the US has used as a vector toward greater
regional conflict. Its ability or inability to create conflict there again, directly or
through Israel, and that conflict's ability or inability to drag Iran, Syria and other
players in directly, will determine the outlook for America's wider agenda in the
region."
The "online investigations" propaganda operation at Bellingcat site very much includes the
comments section of the site. Don't expect Bellingcat to perform any actual journalism or substantive investigation. The
function of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat site is to serve as a propaganda channel for
"fake news" and "alternative facts".
Knomore , October 31, 2017 at 2:20 pm
A sardine is hauled in and the big fish swim away. This story seems to suggest either
massive chutzpah on the part of the Clinton campaign or stupidity fueled by desperation. That
they would allow Mueller's investigation to go forward when they were sitting on a mountain
of graft, collusion and other malfeasance (i.e., uranium sold to Russia for among other
things half a million straight into Billl's pocket) all of it, really quite amazing.
We got two uniformly bad candidates in the 2016 elections, both of whom were/are ardent
supporters of Israel. How did that happen? And Paul Manafort was indicted for supposedly
establishing a relationship with a foreign government that was not covered by the Foreign
Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Speaking of FARA, when is someone in the US government or the totally corrupted and
bought-off US Congress going to demand that Israel and AIPAC be registered under FARA? And
then: When will investigations begin into some of the truly treasonous acts and legislation
shepherded by this foreign agent called AIPAC: -- like its interference with Free Speech
protections in the US Bill of Rights, and this latest: Something about residents of some town
in Texas forced to sign a loyalty pledge in support of Israel in order to receive funds to
rebuild their stricken landscape ??? Is Israel putting up the money for disaster relief
projects in America? If so, how did this come about?
Knomore, "A sardine is hauled in and the big fish swim away" I think you are anticipating
what's likely to happen if/when it does Wikileaks could well drop the other shoe, but Mueller
needs to finish his investigation even if it's headed in a bogus direction.
"Speaking of FARA, when is someone in the US government or the totally corrupted and
bought-off US Congress going to demand that Israel and AIPAC be registered under FARA?"
excellent point and Saudi Arabia should register under FARA as well, for its sinister funding
of American think tanks.
Danny Weil , October 31, 2017 at 2:23 pm
From the World Socialist Web Site:"
31 October 2017
Three months ago, the World Socialist Web Site published its first exposé documenting
Google's blacklisting of the WSWS and other left-wing websites. It warned that Google's
actions were part of a sweeping campaign, coordinated with the US government, media and
intelligence agencies, to censor the Internet.
The period since this initial exposure has seen this campaign develop with extraordinary
speed, as the Democratic Party, working with major media outlets, uses unsubstantiated
allegations of Russian "hacking" of the 2016 election to mount a drive to criminalize
political opposition within the United States. What is involved is nothing less than the
greatest attack on the First Amendment since the Second World War
Yes, Our freedom of speech is under serious attack by the oligarchic fascist oppressors
within America. They fear truth more than anything.
Drew Hunkins , October 31, 2017 at 2:24 pm
It's mind blowing to see my liberal friends fall for all the Russophobic nonsense.
Mueller's indeed on a witch hunt. Try telling that to your Maddow brainwashed liberal
colleagues, sheesh.
Go after Trump for the right reasons! Not for phony baloney that puts the world on nuclear
brinkmanship!
Dmitri , October 31, 2017 at 3:10 pm
Trump provided them a very good reason to impeach him when last April he ordered an attack
on Syria in violation of both international law (an attack on a sovereign country that posed
no threat to the US) and the US law (a use of military force without Congress authorization).
But no, they all approved this illegal action!
mike k , October 31, 2017 at 3:13 pm
Exactly right Drew.
Stephen , October 31, 2017 at 3:48 pm
It appears that this whole thing is the Democrats version of the "birther" claims some
Republicans hung onto for years. I suppose I could be wrong but if they had solid evidence
you would see it thirty times a day like when they showed the twin towers falling thirty
times a day.
The Puerto Rico disaster is good enough reason to go after Trump but I suppose the lily white
Democratic elites don't care about Puerto Ricans anymore than does Trump.
Dave P. , October 31, 2017 at 3:55 pm
Drew Hunkins – Yes. Very true.
Andrew , October 31, 2017 at 2:43 pm
I think there is a clear evidence that Trump's camp reached out to Russia. Whether the
Russians did anything to help Trump (e.g., DNC hack) is a different story. More than likely
not.
mike k , October 31, 2017 at 3:15 pm
Since when was "reaching out to Russia" a crime? This is just Orwellian word demonizing
BS.
Andrew , October 31, 2017 at 3:32 pm
Lying to federal investigator is. Contrary to a popular belief, stupid is a crime.
witters , October 31, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Andrew, how long did you get?
Drew Hunkins , October 31, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Exactly mike k. Right now we need doves in Washington (if there are any left) trying their
damnedest to have a dialogue with Moscow. Just very recently the imbecilic Pence was at a
nuclear launch site in Minot ND pontificating to media and personnel who were present about
how they should be fully prepared to launch! This is preposterous and dangerous lunacy.
Washington has been virtually taken over by a militaristic-Zionist cabal and its currently
dead set on destabilizing relationships among nuclear powers. The demonization towards the
Kremlin at a time when the major media are fomenting a witch hunt atmosphere is breathtaking
to behold.
That liberals -- in their hatred of the big bad Trumpenstein -- are going along with this
terrifying group think is one of the more irrational and incredible dynamics I've ever
witnessed in my decades of following the politico-economic scene.
Hate Trump for the right reasons. Don't fall for a Paul Singer, Bill Kristol, et. al.,
orchestrated propaganda campaign.
Fitzgerald said the mark of a true intellectual is to hold two opposing views in one's
mind at the simultaneously and maintain the ability to function.
Drew Hunkins , October 31, 2017 at 4:49 pm
Whoops garbled my last paragraph:
hold two opposing views in one's mind simultaneously and maintain the ability to
function.
The editor regrets the error.
Mark Thomason , October 31, 2017 at 2:48 pm
The statement of charge does not set out meetings of the sort that need to be proved.
It does suggest that the guy has been cooperating against others, "proactive" about it too
as in wearing a wire.
It tells us to expect more, of a particular sort. That is the real importance, not what it
spells out.
fudmier , October 31, 2017 at 3:00 pm
Russia gate: another Divide and Conquer (D&C) staged propaganda bit. Here we go again!
Good report.
Look @ well researched https://isgp-studies.com/ explains how massively embedded
criminal networks use the awesome powers and resources of salaried government to deprive the
non salaried governed 99% (basically the video entranced barnyard hosted citizens) of their
quality of life and peace of mind. Suggest to study the ISGP site carefully; refer to it
often as it reveals a wealth of organized criminal activities and demonstrates just how
difficult it promises to be to maintain a human rights oriented integrity in government.
Unless the government is audited by the governed, and state secrets of any kind for any
reason are eliminated progress will never happen.
____Abe's citation of Engdahl => "we might find ourselves in another war for oil in of
all places the Golan Heights, this one a war involving Syria, Russia, Iran, Lebanon's
Hezbollah on one side and Israel and Rex Tillerson's 68 nation 'anti-ISIS coalition' on the
other side, another senseless war over control of oil."" suggest Tillerson s\b taken
seriously, as should the looming anticipation that the anti-Assad (Syrian belligerent
invaders) still plan to use false flag poison gas ops to bring down Assad, and to destroy
Syria, this time it seems to be in USA backed occupied Allepo, Syria ( see. https://friendsofsyria.wordpress.com/ ). Its all
about oil and gas; take a look at the LNG oil and gas seaports' in America. then ask
yourselves .. who, where, why and when and what happens to 100 trillion private dollar
investment if the LNG business plan fails? ). Nothing will change until the video entranced
barnyard humanity is allowed to see the facts outside of false narrative propaganda. Could
the solution to better government and the elimination of war be as simple as being sure
everyone in the world has easy, accurately translated, access to unbiased, reliable news and
information? probably not, some means to get the barnyard critters to understand it would be
needed.
How long is this BS going to continue! Maybe we could produce a narrative on how the
United States interfere in elections globally; we do not have to dig that deep!
As usual good article
mike k , October 31, 2017 at 3:17 pm
The BS will continue until we find enough ways to stop it. This site is one way. Truth is
the antidote to lies.
Jay , October 31, 2017 at 3:21 pm
"George Papadopoulos, a 30-year-old campaign aide who claims to have heard about Russia
possessing Hillary Clinton's emails before they became public on the Internet, mostly via
WikiLeaks."
Respectfully: No one but Benghazi "gate" pushers care about Hillary Clinton's emails.
The leaked DNC emails and the very likely leaked Podesta emails on the other hand are of
grave concern, since they show the DNC conspiring against the Sanders nomination.
In short: Who cares what Papadopoulos has to say about Hillary emails, they're not really
the subject the "Russian hacking" claims.
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Since "they" (Papadopoulos) never saw the e-mails (or any e-mails) it's impossible to know
which tranche of e-mails was (allegedly) offered and there are several known
collections/leaks/hacks, as well as possibly still unknown collections . making it even more
murky.
As needs to be remembered, even if an "insider" downloaded and leaked e-mails, that does
not preclude a hack and a hack does not preclude a leak (or multiple leaks or hacks).
She also reminds us that the first big WikiLeaks "Clinton e-mails" dump was the result of
FOIA request
the mind reels a bit (given the apparent insignificance of these dumps/leaks on public
opinion) but:
But there's no reason to believe that the emails in question, if they existed at all,
would have been the documents WikiLeaks ended up releasing in October of 2016. Firstly,
they could have been not emails from Podesta, but from Hillary Clinton herself. Remember,
there were numerous indications that Clinton's server was insecure and may have been hacked
by multiple foreign governments, any of which could have gotten them to the Kremlin for use
as blackmail following what was at the time believed to be Hillary's inevitable election.
Maybe it was the infamous 30,000 emails she deleted, who knows, or any number of possible
ways incriminating information can appear in email format. None of these fit into the
official Russia/WikiLeaks narrative, however, so Litman made it about Podesta emails.
It would be interesting if the phantom e-mails allegedly offered by "Russians" in
February/March were the same "dirt" allegedly offered in that August meeting
The stupidity of those still beating-a-dead-horse wrt Trump's "joke" about the Russians
maybe locating / hacking to find the 35,000 Clinton e-mails is beyond all endurance and yet
it persists.
I believe if there really was "law and order" in America, there would be massive arrests
of those in power and their allies, (Past and present) for war crimes and crimes against
humanity. Unfortunately what we are seeing is: The "Posturing of Evil"
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
September 24, 2017
The Posturing of Evil
The posturing of evil is a sight to behold
Purveyors of war crimes that need to be told
Clad in expensive suits, are these well dressed war criminals
Men and women without any morals or principles
So called "leaders" of the human race
They really are a bloody disgrace
Invaders of countries in illegal wars
They are yesterday and today's warmongering whores
Millions are dead because of their atrocious war crimes
Millions are refugees because of their dirty pastime
Creating wars is what these war perverts do
Paid for by compulsory taxes from me and you
Financiers and supporters of terrorists as well
These treasonous villains create more hell
They are hypocrites that talk of, 'the rule of law"
Their lying words should stick in your craw
Countries are destroyed and civil wars rage
This is how the corporate cannibals get paid
Supplying the weapons of death and disaster
Killing innocent victims very much faster
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and other countries too
Are hell holes of destruction caused by this unholy crew
They parade on the world stage and give unctuous talks
When really most of these criminals should be in the dock
On trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity
Instead they are free and spreading their insanity
They have caused death and destruction and massive upheaval
How much more will people take of this posturing of evil?
Your poems pack a punch Stephen. They are a treat for truth lovers.
Drew Hunkins , October 31, 2017 at 5:21 pm
The careerism of the "respected" mass media commentators, journalists and talking heads
could lead the world to nuclear war. Many of these whores know exactly what they're doing.
Many of them know there was no attempt by the Kremlin to "hack" the election or otherwise
interfere in the election but they feed the public repetitive nonsense over and over and over
again.
That otherwise liberal minded, intelligent people are buying into this dangerous group
think is one of the more incredible things I've ever witnessed.
People's critical thinking faculties have left them. Otherwise intelligent people are
bereft of critical thinking skills when it comes to the big bad Trumpenstein and it's
horrifying to see this all play out.
Attack Trump for the right reasons, NOT because he desire rapprochement with Moscow and
dared to suggest the Washington empire should be reined in a bit.
Bill , October 31, 2017 at 5:29 pm
*Trump gets caught on tape discussing the hacking of the DNC with Putin himself, and
laughing about how they were going to get Trump the presidency together.*
Robert Parry, probably: "While this would seem to bolster the Russiagate narrative, the
media's blowing it out of proportion, and what if it's a fake tape? And what about
Hillary!?"
You're truly a stand up guy dude, and I appreciate your journalism, but I think you're
kinda biased on this one.
That's not to say you're not correct about MSM intolerance of debate and skepticism.
That's absolutely true. Still, I think it's pretty clear what happened here, and that the DNC
was indeed hacked. Might not ever get legally proven, but let's be real. That's exactly what
this looks like.
Leslie F , October 31, 2017 at 5:42 pm
"Russia-gate special prosecutor Robert Mueller has turned up the heat on President Trump
with the indictment of Trump's former campaign manager for unrelated financial crimes and the
disclosure of a guilty plea from a low-level foreign policy adviser for lying to the
FBI."
Well, there is a conspiracy against the United States charge against Manafort which could
mean almost anything like conspiracy to evade taxes which would fit with the money laundering
or it could be an attempt to tie him to the dubious Papadapoulos narrative. Papadapoulas has
only with charged with lying to the FBI, not with anything that could be called "collusion".
Maybe that was the plea agreement or maybe they know the case isn't really there.
ADL , October 31, 2017 at 6:02 pm
Ahh yes Parry's weekly comical defense of the 'man with a plan'. Kinda disappointed tho
– I mean usually his columns are headlined with COUP COUP COUP.
Let's see now. Robert Mueller is a hack, won't let poor Parry into his inner circle, and
amazingly does not leak or publicize exactly who and what he is investigating. And everything
he has learned during such. And Parry takes his weekly shots. Pretty pathetic.
"credibility has already been undermined by his guilty plea' ??????? That is pretty
comical yes?
Parry's defense of Papa is incredibly amateurish – he should start screenwriting TV
Drama's. According to Parry Mueller should lay out every piece of evidence he has, should try
his whole case in his indictment and in the public theater. And have all the evidence within
30 days of investigation or give up. Or better yet just include Parry on his Prosecutor team.
But that would not work – from day one Parry has been Trump's #1 defender. Hell, it
took Trump praising the KKK in Charlottesville to even get a whimper of outrage out of
Parry.
This continual drivel plays out like a desperate person who is completely out of the loop,
or better yet a man with a pathological grudge – almost always against NYT and
WAPO.
I have no issues with calling out any person, and media. But Parry reads like Hannity or
Trump himself. It's embarrassing and not worth the paper written on.
Anon , October 31, 2017 at 7:38 pm
Zionist alert – ADL is the only truth in the comment.
Realist , October 31, 2017 at 6:06 pm
This whole special investigation is like something out of Kafka. It starts with
unsubstantiated politically-driven accusations by the opposition party, progresses to a witch
hunt to desperately find any evidence against the prime target (Trump), and when that hole
proves dry it slouches toward trying to trick and trap peripheral witnesses (Papadopoulos)
into making contradictory statements for which they can be indicted for "lying" to federal
agents. Or else political or business associates of the target (Manafort) can be pressured
and indicted on unrelated offenses. That indictment can then be used as leverage to get the
indicted person to turn evidence (whether any exists or not) against the primary target in
return for reduced sentences or even pardons. If this useful tool lies further in trying to
please his new masters, who cares? Mission accomplished. Before this is over, there will be
more kangaroos at large in American courts than on the Australian continent. America is truly
a beacon of freedom, democracy and, above all, JUSTICE for the entire world to admire. How
utterly exceptional! A country where even its elected president can be railroaded like a
common street criminal if it suits those ruling from the shadows. Behold the coup d'etat
thrown together with nothing more than smoke and mirrors, vague accusations and strong-arm
tactics against witnesses. Sure, Trump is a dumb arrogant jerk, but the characters after his
hide are trying to steal the remnant shards we still possess of our constitutional
"democracy," republic or whatever you might have called it.
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 6:08 pm
This has now moved beyond questions of "the hack" and Russia-gate to the meta issues of
who will be indicted next and for what they're moving quickly into "it's not the alleged
crime (conspiracy**), it's the cover-up" territory which would suggest Flynn is next which
would/could be a game changer.
As Clintoni was not impeached because he had sex with Lewinsky, but that he lied during a
deposition . Trump could be brought down if multiple aides are willing to testify that he
"participated" in the "alleged conspiracy"
** Mentioned recently was that the word/term "collusion" is not a legal one Collusion is
not a crime, almost any communication "might" be collusions -- a conspiracy to commit a crime
can be/is (though usually it is the crime that is prosecuted, rather than the conspiracy --
see also terrorism prosecutions based on, for example, a person's preparations to travel to X
country to fight for jihad, or various "material support" convictions for piddling "support"
, waterproof socks anyone?)
Remember also that it's been floated that the FBI's investigation is winding down in
advance of being closed -- and that the congressional investigations will likely be hampered
by indictments and the legal advice that will be brought to bear.
I'm rather doubtful that Manafort (savvy businessman) would have involved / intermingled
his business dealings with reckless and sleazy Donald Trump even if he did buy a condo in
Trump tower.
Manafort was brought in to handle the delegates at the convention, to prevent a revolt or
other embarrassment from the Never Trump faction(s). He did that, with his long-standing top
echelon GOP ties and god knows what else. I'm relatively doubtful he has any smoking gun to
trade in a plea bargain and I suspect he has elite friends and backers who will ensure that
he (and family) will be taken care of if he's convicted, and -- given the nature of elite
prosecutions -- he may have a conviction reversed on appeal and/or be allowed -- once he has
solidly refused to be "turned -- to pay massive fines in exchange for a guilty plea.
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 6:32 pm
note also that as outlined so far, Team Trump never solicited dirt from the Russians --
rather it was either volunteered or dangled wrt the August meeting, possibly as bait in order
to "win" a meeting and the offered "gift" of dirt was never either accepted or received
I'm unsure if there is any reality to the implication of some legal responsibility to
report such an "offer" of dirt . and yes, the "hypocrisy" of Steele solicitiing and paying
for Kremlin dirt may result in another "investigation" again of "collusion"
Anonymot , October 31, 2017 at 6:19 pm
The the U.S. mainstream media opposes Trump, which is very understandable, but it is hard
to comprehend why they are so totally unbalanced and unquestioning. Of course, there is a
minute number like Fox, but sources that rest on their laurels as center and center left (by
US definition) have abandoned any objectivity. Realists are reduced to you and Intercept are
all that are left. Even Truthout and RSN, Buzzfeed, and most others act as though Hillary
will still be President – or maybe is. I read the Guardia daily, but it just mirrors
the NYT. Also Le Monde that is more European centered, but one sees Clintonian America in
much of its coverage.
I'm at a loss to understand the why & how the MSM turned to propaganda machines.
Realist , October 31, 2017 at 6:53 pm
I was watching the BBC world news on cable tonight. They are completely in the bag on this
rubbish that Putin's Troll factory or somebody (the last of the Bolsheviks, perhaps) posting
a piddling number of ads on facebook from allegedly Russian IP addresses (possibly CIA, if
you ask me) poisoned the minds of well over a hundred million Americans–probably
convincing every one of them to vote for Trump putatively against their self-interests and
good judgement. Formerly respectable journalists, IT experts and academics are lending their
images and reputations to this idiotic narrative. Apparently, the whole nation got schooled
in Putin's treachery before the Congress this afternoon. So, sayeth the expert witnesses.
This is Group Think like I've never seen before in my 70 years on this planet. Very
distressing that 90+% of Americans can be so mind-controlled and deluded, even those with
relevant expertise and an inside track to the facts.
D.H. Fabian , October 31, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Yes, and from the very start, the Clintonites began spinning this situation into the
anti-Russian Tale. Most likely, it will be years before the excessive propaganda and
counter-propaganda of 2017 is sorted out.
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 7:03 pm
I have to wonder about a Nuland/Kagan Ukranian foundation as I began to wonder in the last
few days if the existing (quite likely partisan) investigations of Manafort going back years,
were used to piggyback the sliming of Trump last summer the rejoicing when Manafort resigned
was rather disproportionate (given he'd only been in the job for 3 months), possibly
vindictive (but wrt what?) particularly given the varied Biden and McCain and Podesta
interests in that same small Ukrainian pond (Crimea, Crimea, Crimea!!!!!)
Doubt Clinton wrote all those Russian/Trump talking points by herself and the mythos of
Putin as militarily aggressive/existential threat also arises and is referred back to the
Ukraine (because Syria really isn't some credible base of power/sphere of influence, while
the treat to nato countries is "golden" and "evergreen").
Seriously impressive how the wishes of the people of Crimea (and Eastern Ukraine) are
discounted, erased ..
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 7:19 pm
Fwiw, my thought at the time, was that Clinton was "priming the pump" (manufacturing
consent) for an extremely assertive out-of-the gate foreign policy assault on Russia/Putin
(now that pokey cowardly Obama was out of the way)
In any event, yes, Clinton's anti-Putin/Russia campaign and Trump/Russian money ties --
iirc -- began long before the alleged DNC hack piggybacking reweaving the "narrative"?
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 8:01 pm
seriously .honest I have zero Russian "connection" but just discovered Lavrov, per RT, is
suggesting that Mueller probe Manifort's Ukraine connections
It's always been curious how many of Manifort's "Russian connections" weren't "Russian"
Ukraine, Khazikstan, other ex-USSR satellites with oligarchs of their own
It should be noted the Manifort is a despicable human being who (very successfully and for
a lot of money) does PR work for "bad people" while the USA officially, successfully,
compellingly, does the same for financial and other favors (KSA, Duerte, even Saddam Hussein,
the Shah of Iran)
Jessejean , October 31, 2017 at 8:24 pm
Susan–I totally agree with you. I thought the same thing last Nov. and was sure the
effing First Woman President would have us in a shooting war with Russia before Christmas if
she were elected. I'd love to see Robert The Great do a complete analysis of Russia gate,
starting with Lybia, Syria, Ukraine (and Nuland), including the Sons Podesta just to see what
the web looks like objectively. Put Killery and Saudi Arabia in the middle of that web and
hey presto, we could fire Mueller with no loss of the truth.
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 9:46 pm
Not so funny -- but -- I largely accepted that Hilary Clinton would be the next president
that the failure of some upsurge of resistance to Obama suggested that "Democrats" were going
to ratify Obama (as devastatingly disappointing as he was) and kick-it-up-a-notch being more
interventionalist, more in-your-face aggressive.
Never occurred to me that Sanders was anything more than a sheepdog, keeping those
adorably idealistic Obama army "kids" in their blue shirts, keeping them from defecting from
the Blue Team.
The lack of polling is becoming conspicuous, imho. Slavoj Zizek has become a punchline (at
least in the USA/UK universe) because (imho) he raises uncomfortable issues wrt to
reconciling long-standing ideals with realities (political and physical) While "we" have our
differences, I am appalled by the wide-spread de-platforming that (unlike Facebook and
Twitter demographics) is un-graphed and ignored . that censorship by neglect, indifference,
silent lack of regard .. erosion of even the intellectual pretence of curiosity and/or open
mindedness.
Lois Gagnon , October 31, 2017 at 7:48 pm
Don't ask me why, but I suspect this insanity is going to drag on for another 3 years. If
we live that long. I wouldn't mind if I thought it would keep the insiders from doing their
worst damage to us and everyone else on the planet, but I'm sure they'll use the distraction
to get away with as much criminal behavior as they can. Collapsing Empire is not a pretty
sight.
Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 8:48 pm
be scared .. from Slate/Dahlia Litwick apparently Manifort and Gates have been denied
Attorney Client Privilege (not entirely unprecedented, but shall we say in this case dubious,
scary) -- this is a financial crimes case no exigent circumstances, not "criminal" as in
"violent criminality" or imminent danger to anyone (I suspect they are "afraid" of being
out-lawyered, out-maneuvered)
"... At the very least, it seems that they would have to prove that Russia committed some sort of crime, and Trump was somehow complicit in that. Based on what has been publicly revealed, I have doubts that they would be prove anything related to what has been alleged. The more likely outcome, if they're going to get Trump, is that some other unrelated crimes surface during the course of the investigation. Given the scope of his business enterprises, that wouldn't be all that surprising. ..."
Two things are true about the indictments unsealed by special counsel Bob Mueller
Monday:
-They don't provide a "smoking gun" proving collusion between Donald Trump's operation
and Russia.
-They make it almost impossible to believe that there wasn't collusion between Trump's
operation and Russia.
The trick is you can replace the first bullet point with anything and it still works if
you're a DemocRAT.
Let's try –
They don't provide a smoking gun proving that aliens built the pyramids out of gorgonzola
cheese, but they make it almost impossible to believe there wasn't collusion between Trump's
operation and Russia.
Fun for the whole family! And way to go Ezra Klein – it's like a new 6 degrees of
Kevin Bacon.
I've been wondering – what do they think that they can actually prove in court? What
crime(s) do they believe Trump committed? At the very least, it seems that they would have to
prove that Russia committed some sort of crime, and Trump was somehow complicit in that.
Based on what has been publicly revealed, I have doubts that they would be prove anything
related to what has been alleged. The more likely outcome, if they're going to get Trump, is
that some other unrelated crimes surface during the course of the investigation. Given the
scope of his business enterprises, that wouldn't be all that surprising.
Thus we have Free Beacon neocons, never-Trump Republicans, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the
DNC, a British spy and comrades in Russian intelligence, and perhaps the FBI, all working with
secret money and seedy individuals to destroy a candidate they could not defeat in a free
election.
Notable quotes:
"... What was the FBI's relationship with the British spy who was so wired into Russian intelligence? ..."
"... Thus we have Free Beacon neocons, never-Trump Republicans, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC, a British spy and comrades in Russian intelligence, and perhaps the FBI, all working with secret money and seedy individuals to destroy a candidate they could not defeat in a free election. ..."
Well over a year after the FBI began investigating "collusion" between the Trump campaign
and Vladimir Putin, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has brought in his first major
indictment.
Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort has been charged with a series of crimes dating back
years, though none is tied directly to President Donald Trump or 2016.
With a leak to CNN that indictments were coming, Mueller's office stole the weekend
headlines. This blanketed the explosive news on a separate front, as the dots began to be
connected on a bipartisan plot to bring down Trump that began two years ago.
And like "Murder of the Orient Express," it seems almost everyone on the train had a hand in
the plot.
The narrative begins in October 2015.
Then it was that the Washington Free Beacon, a neocon website, engaged a firm of researchers
called Fusion GPS to do deep dirt-diving into Trump's personal and professional life -- and
take him out.
A spinoff of Bill Kristol's The Weekly Standard, the Beacon is run by his son-in-law. And
its Daddy Warbucks is the GOP oligarch and hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer.
From October 2015 to May 2016, Fusion GPS dug up dirt for the neocons and never-Trumpers. By
May, however, Trump had routed all rivals and was the certain Republican nominee.
So the Beacon bailed, and Fusion GPS found two new cash cows to finance its dirt-diving --
the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
To keep the sordid business at arm's length, both engaged the party's law firm of Perkins
Coie. Paid $12.4 million by the DNC and Clinton campaign, Perkins used part of this cash hoard
to pay Fusion GPS.
Here is where it begins to get interesting.
In June 2016, Fusion GPS engaged a British spy, Christopher Steele, who had headed up the
Russia desk at MI6, to ferret out any connections between Trump and Russia.
Steele began contacting old acquaintances in the FSB, the Russian intelligence service. And
the Russians began to feed him astonishing dirt on Trump that could, if substantiated, kill his
candidacy.
Among the allegations was that Trump had consorted with prostitutes at a Moscow hotel, that
the Kremlin was blackmailing him, that there was provable collusion between the Trump campaign
and Russia.
In memos from June to October 2016, Steele passed this on to Fusion GPS, which passed it on
to major U.S. newspapers. But as the press was unable to verify it, they declined to publish
it.
Steele's final product, a 35-page dossier, has been described as full of "unsubstantiated
and salacious allegations."
Steele's research, however, had also made its way to James Comey's FBI, which was apparently
so taken with it that the bureau considered paying Steele to continue his work. About this
"astonishing" development, columnist Byron York of the Washington Examiner quotes Sen. Chuck
Grassley:
"The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to
investigate the Republican nominee for president in the run-up to the election raises ...
questions about the FBI's independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration's
use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends."
The questions begin to pile up. What was the FBI's relationship with the British spy who
was so wired into Russian intelligence?
Did the FBI use the information Steele dug up to expand its own investigation of
Russia-Trump "collusion"? Did the FBI pass what Steele unearthed to the White House and the
National Security Council?
Did the Obama administration use the information from the Steele dossier to justify
unmasking the names of Trump officials that had been picked up on legitimate electronic
intercepts?
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta
and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed they did not know that Perkins Coie had enlisted
Fusion GPA or the British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. Yet, when Podesta testified, the lawyer
sitting beside him in the committee room was Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, who had engaged Fusion
GPS and received the fruits of Steele's undercover work. Here one is tempted to cite Bismarck
that, if you wish to enjoy politics or sausages, you should not inquire too closely how they
are made.
Thus we have Free Beacon neocons, never-Trump Republicans, the Hillary Clinton campaign,
the DNC, a British spy and comrades in Russian intelligence, and perhaps the FBI, all working
with secret money and seedy individuals to destroy a candidate they could not defeat in a free
election.
If future revelations demonstrate that this is what went down, it is not only the White
House that has major problems.
If you wish to know why Americans detest politics and hate the "swamp" that has been made of
their capital city, follow this story all the way to its inevitable end. It will be months of
unfolding.
The real indictment here is of the American political system, and the true tragedy is the
decline of the Old Republic.
"Thus we have Free Beacon neocons, never-Trump Republicans, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the
DNC, a British spy and comrades in Russian intelligence, and perhaps the FBI, all working with
secret money and seedy individuals to destroy a candidate they could not defeat in a free election"
[Patrick Buchanan,
Real Clear
Politics ].
"It sure looks like there was collusion between the Trump operation and Russia" [Ezra Klein,
Vox ]. "Two things are true about the indictments unsealed by special counsel Bob Mueller
Monday: They don't provide a "smoking gun" proving collusion between Donald Trump's operation
and Russia. They make it almost impossible to believe that there wasn't collusion between Trump's
operation and Russia."
"Hillary Clinton Shouldn't Go Away. She Should Embrace Her Role as Trump's Nemesis." [Jeet
Heer,
The New Republic ]. "With the Mueller investigation now besieging Trump, there's no better
time for Clinton to deploy her special gift of enraging Trump. More than any other politician,
she can speak to the legitimacy crisis in his government, and the success of her bestselling memoir
What Happened proves that there is a vast audience eager to listen." Please kill me now.
"It is surely a scandal, and not just in the political sense, when the former chairman of a
presidential campaign is indicted for work related to a corrupt foreign government. At the same
time, it's important to remember that Paul Manafort's indictment is not evidence that President
Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election" [Editorial Board,
Bloomberg ].
* * *
"How Manafort lost $600,000 in a shell company the government now says was used for money laundering"
[Francine McKenna,
MarketWatch ]. The shell company was Lilred. "Lilred is an investment vehicle that was set
up by Manafort to invest in a strategy that involved stripping the interest payments from a group
of high-yield Ginnie Mae insured mortgages to create a collateralized mortgage obligation. Investors
could buy those CMO securities, on margin, and use the high-yield interest payments to service
the debt and capture a positive difference between the interest rates, or spread." They call it
an investment vehicle because it's designed to drive off with your money
"Tony Podesta stepping down from lobbying giant amid Mueller probe" [
Politico ] Whoopsie. That was fast.
"Washington's Legions Of Lobbyists See Danger In Special Counsel's Indictment Of Manafort"
[
Buzzfeed ]. "The threat of serving hard time for failing to disclose foreign lobbying work
is rattling Washington's multi-billion dollar influence industry following Monday's 12-count indictment
against Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates. And
although the charges have largely been seen as a blow to the White House, Monday's actions by
special prosecutor Robert Mueller also sent shivers down the spines of Washington's lobbyists,
both Democrats and Repulicans."
The mysterious (and 30-year-old) Papadopoulos: "[C]ourt documents unsealed by the special counsel's
office on Monday show that he was in communication with the highest-ranking officials on the campaign"
[
RealClearPolitics ]. "Papadopoulos came to the Trump campaign in March of 2016 with little
experience in the foreign policy realm compared to advisers on more traditional campaigns. Trump's
unconventional campaign did not attract the high-level foreign policy experts typically drawn
to presidential contenders . [T[he lack of a substantial foreign policy team created risks, some
that might be coming back to bite him." And: "[I]t's the final footnote of the special counsel's
now-unsealed document on Papadopoulos that has all sides interested, and likely concerned: 'Following
his arrest, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met with the Government on numerous occasions to provide information
and answer questions.'"
To justify the 180 degree shift on an anti-Afghan policy position that he had tweeted about
vociferously for six years running (see below), the Donald's teleprompter scripters offered an
explanation that was beyond lame:
"My original instinct was to pull out – and, historically, I like following my
instincts. But all my life I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the
desk in the Oval Office. In other words, when you're President of the United
States."'
Actually, we are relived to hear Trump finally recognizes that he actually is President and
wish he would start doing something presidential. For instance, he could declassify all the NSA
intercepts about purported Russian meddling in the US election, and prove that it's all a hoax
generated by Obama's despicable national security advisor, John Brennan, and a handful of deep
state operatives who properly feared the Donald's solid anti-interventionist instincts.
So doing, Trump could crush the anti-Russian hysteria and the Deep State/Dem/mainstream
media campaign to hound him from office and get on with the desperately important business of
effectuating a rapprochement with Russia. World peace depends on it; the failing American
Empire can't be dismantled without it; and the nation's fast growing fiscal calamity can't be
stemmed unless there is a drastic, multi-hundred billion reduction in defense spending.
But it's not to be. The Donald has been hoodwinked by three discredited, failed generals
– Kelly, McMasters, and Mattis – who have been dissembling, spinning and lying to
civilian officials about Afghanistan for most of the past 17 years. Any generals worth their
salt would have told their civilian superiors years ago that Afghanistan is mission impossible
and irrelevant to the security of the American homeland. That's because there never was more
than a few hundred al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and when bin-Laden hightailed to his
hideaway in Pakistan in 2003 that should have been the end of Washington's pointless but
incredibly destructive invasion and occupation.
By contrast, there was never any US national security interest whatsoever in cleansing the
godforsaken lands of the Hindu Kush of the 12th century Taliban fanatics who took over this
hapless country during the 1990s. And largely with weapons that had been supplied by the CIA
during the 1980s in a pointless mission to drive the Soviets out.
"... Friedman insists that he is "not talking about a coup." This, too, is sheer, indeed contemptible, dishonesty. He is, in fact, not only "talking about" a coup but using the nation's newspaper of record to advocate a coup. Friedman wants our civilian commander-in-chief to take his marching orders from the generals. Well, welcome to the junta. ..."
"... "Comply or we'll quit"? That's not a coup, that's a strike. ..."
"... Problem is the coup has taken place already and at Trump's initiative. He's already told the generals he trusts them to do whatever they think good and need not bother informing him. ..."
"... The Republic ends, one way or another, as an oligarchic military dictatorship. Or so our elites would have it, to avoid democratic accountability. The common people never want war and that just won't do. ..."
"... I think Kirt is correct when he says, "Problem is the coup has taken place already and at Trump's initiative. He's already told the generals he trusts them to do whatever they think good and need not bother informing him." ..."
"... A. J. Bacevich writes about T. Friedman: "The glib prophet of globalization remains glib, but his prophecies have proven largely bogus." Couldn't agree more and I would add that the "glib prophet of globalization" is not only glib and bogus, he is not even flat he is 1D (one dimentional) as one can be. ..."
And the solution? McCain doesn't quite say, instead descending into sheer babble: "We need a
strategy that lifts our sights above the tactical level and separates the urgent from the truly
important." I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but my guess is that, if pressed for
details, McCain will argue for more war, not less. He will ignore what the wars he has so
energetically endorsed have cost and what little they have accomplished.
And yet McCain's column stands as a model of logic and circumspection in comparison to
Thomas Friedman's. If McCain's reputation has spiked upward lately, Friedman's has tanked, at
least so it seems to me. The glib prophet of globalization remains glib, but his prophecies
have proven largely bogus.
The title of Friedman's piece takes the form of a directive: "General Mattis, Stand Up to
Trump or He'll Drag You Down." Friedman begins, as he so often does, by quoting himself at
length. In an earlier column, he had instructed Trump's generals -- Mattis, Kelly, and McMaster
-- to "stand up and reverse the moral rot that has infected the Trump administration from the
top." They failed to comply.
Now desperate, Friedman summons Mattis as "the last man standing -- the only one who has not
been infected by Trump's metastasizing ethical cancer, the only one who has not visibly lied on
Trump's behalf, and who can still put some fear into Trump" -- to seize control of the
situation and save the Republic from the individual elected to the presidency less than a year
ago.
"Secretary Mattis," Friedman writes, "we don't need any more diagnosis of the problem. We
need action." The necessary action is this: Along with Kelly and McMaster, Mattis should tell
Trump "that if he does not change his ways you will all quit, en masse."
"Trump needs to know that it is now your way or the highway -- not his," Friedman
writes, certain that the threat of collective resignation will bring Trump to heel. In effect,
he is urging Trump's generals to coerce their commander-in-chief into relinquishing the
authority that is rightly his according to the Constitution. They will make the decisions.
Trump will sign the necessary paperwork.
Friedman insists that he is "not talking about a coup." This, too, is sheer, indeed
contemptible, dishonesty. He is, in fact, not only "talking about" a coup but using the
nation's newspaper of record to advocate a coup. Friedman wants our civilian commander-in-chief
to take his marching orders from the generals. Well, welcome to the junta.
What does it say about the state of public discourse that views such as these appear in what
is ostensibly the nation's most influential publication? You decide. But I think it says that
the crisis facing our country is much bigger than Trump.
Andrew J. Bacevich is The American Conservative 's writer-at-large.
You sure picked a prime pair of bozos. In their different ways, McCain and Friedman embody
what the rotten DC establishment and how it got that way.
I'm not surprised that their drivel is still being peddled by the NY Times. It'll be a
great pleasure to see what happens to the perps and their cozy little institutions over the
next few years.
"Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question:
Should we be arming ISIS? Or let me ask that differently: Why are we, for the third time
since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran?"
Problem is the coup has taken place already and at Trump's initiative. He's already told the
generals he trusts them to do whatever they think good and need not bother informing him.
"Friedman insists that he is "not talking about a coup." This, too, is sheer, indeed
contemptible, dishonesty. He is, in fact, not only "talking about" a coup but using the
nation's newspaper of record to advocate a coup. Friedman wants our civilian
commander-in-chief to take his marching orders from the generals. Well, welcome to the
junta."
I'm not a fan of Friedman, putting it mildly, and his column is indicative of a second
grader's understanding of American politics, but advocating for mass resignation is..not
advocating for a coup.
Its pretty ironic that before the election, during a Trump/Clinton debate, when Trump was
asked if he would honor the election results, he said something like "We'll see". The
establishment went bonkers and feigned moral outrage at Trump for not giving an unqualified
statement of supporting the election results. Of course that was when it was virtually 100%
certain in their minds that the Hillary would win. Now, we see that a year later they still
have not accepted the result.
If Trump is removed by any means other than an election, they ain't seen nothin yet.
The Republic ends, one way or another, as an oligarchic military dictatorship.
Or so our elites would have it, to avoid democratic accountability. The common people never want war and that just won't do.
When Pres Trump was warned about who he allowed into his inner circle, he ignored said
warnings. I am sure that the generals are honorable pole, but they have been on board with the
mess that exists, hardly a in that they woud support a agenda that tones down the risky
conflict they helped mold and support. I think it was also made clear that these people would
not stop. Trying to please them was not going to be effective. The battle was too much in
your face – they are not New york brawler. They don't get that once its over, its play
nice time. Not given the sheer viciousness of the struggle. They played low ball from the
beginning and they had no intention of letting up.
They have to change the rules and the game, hence the Russia gambit, special prosecutors
(always the concern because they have no boundaries.) who can go willy nilly wherever they so
choose. And they are changing the rules.
They have been talking about a coup prior to the election.
______________
"Now desperate, Friedman summons Mattis as "the last man standing -- the only one who has
not been infected by Trump's metastasizing ethical cancer . . ."
@Fran Macadam, please explain the difference between oligarchy/military dictatorship and
'elites'. pun intended, dare I day, the former is/are every real, and the latter (per Fox
News/Bannonite definition) are the very essence of "fake".
I think Kirt is correct when he says, "Problem is the coup has taken place already and at
Trump's initiative. He's already told the generals he trusts them to do whatever they think
good and need not bother informing him."
This might prove to be the most regrettable part of this very regrettable presidency. We
might just get through it, but it will be with no thanks to the man (reputedly) in charge.
On major economic issues it has always been neo-liberal, which is not "liberal" at
all.
On foreign policy, it has always been neo-con, never considering a war it does not
advocate, never considering overseas commitments it does not welcome.
If McCain and Friedman oppose Trump, it is not to seek liberal solutions to domestic
problems. They both want neo-con solutions to foreign problems.
When they deal with economics, which is a lesser issue with each, it is for neo-liberal
solutions on which they dislike Trump's populism, like the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Trump may be bad, but not for the reasons offered by these two. For what they discuss,
they are the bad guys.
To accept a position in the administrations of Bush, Obama, or now Trump, in itself proved
conclusively that the person in question would not have the moral integrity and principled
convictions to be "a moderating influence" or otherwise shape policy. Powell under Bush is a
revealing example, all the way down to Vials Of Mass Destruction. Mattis and Tillerson, and
indeed anybody else who chose work with Trump – including McConnell, Ryan, Schumer,
Pelosi – define what rational expectations we could have of them, by their very act of
association.
Now if only flatworlding tools like "Suck On This" would fall for the notion of the
"upstanding careerist".
I stopped taking J. McCain and T. Friedman seriously long ago, but in the current context of
American global and Middle eastern politics I read them to know what is going on in their
confused heads.
A. J. Bacevich writes about T. Friedman: "The glib prophet of globalization
remains glib, but his prophecies have proven largely bogus." Couldn't agree more and I would
add that the "glib prophet of globalization" is not only glib and bogus, he is not even flat
he is 1D (one dimentional) as one can be.
This week's bombshell - that the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign financed former
British spy Christopher Steele's salacious dossier allegedly connecting Donald Trump and Russia
- may suggest something even more devious. The dossier was compiled by the notorious firm
Fusion GPS, which also worked for Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, the very woman who met
with Donald Trump Jr. in a meeting deemed pivotal to the case for Trump-Russia "collusion."
The Fusion GPS connection raises a supremely interesting question: Did the Clinton campaign
actually orchestrate the meeting between Trump campaign officials and Veselnitskaya? Is the
entire Trump-Russia collusion narrative the result of a Clinton set-up?
After PJ Media's Liz
Sheld suggested the idea to this reporter, it seemed increasingly plausible. Not only does
the timeline work out, but Clinton attacked Trump as Putin's puppet and Clinton's connections
to Russia had been powerfully reported in 2015. What better way to distract from Clinton's ties
to Russia than proving "collusion" on Trump's part?
When Veselnitskaya met with Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort on June 9, 2016, she pressed
them on the adoption issue, part of the Russian efforts to
undermine the Magnitsky Act . The act - signed by President Barack Obama in December 2012 -
imposed sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for the death of Russian lawyer
Sergei Magnitsky, who unearthed massive fraud within the Russian government and was imprisoned,
tortured, and killed for it in 2009. Hermitage Capital Management CEO
Bill Browder testified that the sanctions "personally" affect Russian President Vladimir
Putin's wealth.
Putin retaliated by banning the adoption of Russian orphans by American families.
Previously, Russia had allowed Americans to adopt sick Russian children, and they adopted kids
suffering with HIV, Down Syndrome, and other ailments. Due to this retaliation for the
Magnitsky Act, Browder testified, these sick children now languish in Russian orphanages and
many will die before their 18th birthdays.
As it turns out, Veselnitskaya hired Fusion GPS to lobby the U.S. government on this very
issue, one extremely pivotal to Putin's monetary interests.
In July, Browder testified that "Veselnitskaya, through Baker Hostetler, hired Glenn Simpson
of the firm Fusion GPS to conduct a smear campaign against me and Sergei Magnitsky in advance
of congressional hearings on the Global Magnitsky Act." This alleged smear campaign took place
in 2014, two years before the presidential election. Through this business, Veselnitskaya made
friends with Fusion GPS.
In April 2016, two months before Veselnitskaya's meeting with Trump campaign officials, the
law firm Perkins Coie, as part of its representation of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, hired
Fusion GPS for research into Trump,
The Washington Post revealed this past week. In a letter to Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie
general counsel Matthew Gehringer noted that his law firm revealed its role in hiring Fusion
GPS in order to help keep Fusion GPS's list of clients confidential. What is the opposition
research firm trying to hide?
In March 2016, Fusion GPS approached Perkins Coie to see if it its clients would be
interested in paying the firm "to continue research regarding then-presidential candidate
Donald Trump." Through Perkins Coie, the DNC and the Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to
perform research that led to the infamous dossier written by former British spy Christopher
Steele.
On Friday, it was revealed that the
Washington Free Beacon was the original source paying Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. The
conservative news outlet insisted that none of the research it paid for was included in the
infamous Steele dossier, however. The Post reported that Fusion GPS hired Steele after the
Democratic funding began, supporting the Free Beacon's version of events.
To recap: Veselnitskaya hired Fusion GPS to undermine Magnitsky's reputation in 2014. The
Clinton campaign and the DNC hired Fusion GPS to compile the Trump dossier in April 2016. Two
months later, Donald Trump Jr. received an
email inviting him to meet with Veselnitskaya ostensibly to gather opposition research on
Clinton -- but at the meeting Veselnitskaya tried to push the Trump campaign to oppose the
Magnitsky Act.
Then, as the DNC and the Clinton campaign pinned the DNC hack to Russia and Trump cited
emails leaked by WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton began attacking Trump as "Putin's puppet." At the
third presidential debate, Clinton argued that Putin supported Trump because he "would rather
have a puppet as president of the United States."
Clinton never brought up the Trump campaign's meeting with Veselniskaya during the election,
but she certainly suggested Trump was in bed with the Russians.
It is plausible that the Clinton campaign and the DNC, working through Fusion GPS, suggested
to Veselnitskaya that she should meet with the Trump campaign. This would have given the
Democrats a clear link between Trump and the Russians, and it would have given Veselnitskaya an
opportunity to further her work on Putin's behalf, with one of the two leading presidential
campaigns. Furthermore, Fusion GPS's role as an intermediary would have given both plausible
deniability.
According to a
recent FEC complaint , the Clinton campaign and the DNC obfuscated their hiring of Fusion
GPS by listing payments to the law firm Perkins Coie as being for "legal services." This
violated the law, as the money really went to opposition research. The decision to work through
Perkins Coie -- and to mislead the FEC about the nature of services -- suggests the Clinton
campaign and the DNC were hiding something.
Clinton also would have had an incentive to try and manufacture connections between Trump
and Russia. Throughout 2015 and into early 2016, Trump was the Republican frontrunner, and he
had praised Putin
many times , suggesting he would "get along well" with the Russian president. The Russia
angle made sense for Clinton to develop, and it would have been a perfect way to distract from
her own troubling Russia connections.
If Clinton wanted to convince Americans that Trump is Putin's real puppet, her campaign
would need more evidence than a few positive comments. After all, Trump was not the candidate
who helped approve a 2010 deal giving Russian company Rosatom 20 percent of U.S. uranium --
right at the time when that very
Russian company was under FBI investigation . The FBI kept the investigation secret, just
when it would have been most important.
In 2015, Peter Schweitzer had published the blistering story in The New York Times
uncovering Clinton's connections to and benefits from the 2010 Uranium One purchase. Her
husband, former President Bill Clinton, had been paid $500,000 for a speech -- at a Russian
bank promoting Uranium One stock.
According to an anonymous witness threatened by the Obama administration, the FBI
investigation into Rosatom also uncovered documents and an eyewitness account rather
inconvenient for the Clintons. This evidence corroborated earlier reports that Russian
officials had routed millions of dollars into the U.S. to benefit the Clinton Foundation just
as Hillary Clinton served on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which
endorsed the Uranium One deal. This past Wednesday night, the Department of Justice finally
authorized the informant to disclose his information and documents.
At the same time as the FBI kept its Rosatom investigation secret, the agency acted fast to
bust a Russian spy ring because it got too close to Hillary Clinton
This past week, Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced that his investigation into
Manafort had extended to cover Tony Podesta -- a Clinton campaign bundler who co-founded the
Podesta Group with his brother, Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta. Both Manafort and
Podesta may have violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), an allegation
PJ Media reported last April . Emphasizing Manafort might have revealed Podesta and his
connections to Clinton.
If Clinton secretly orchestrated the meeting between Veselnitskaya and the Trump campaign,
why did that news not come up in the campaign?
First, the meeting only lasted about 20 minutes, according to Donald Trump Jr. If the
Clinton campaign orchestrated the meeting -- hoping for either proof of Trump-Russia collusion
or to start a long-term relationship between Veselnitskaya and the Trump campaign to use as a
weapon later -- they would have been disappointed to hear the meeting went nowhere.
Expecting to triumph on November 8, Hillary Clinton might have decided not to release the
news of this event, deeming it unnecessary for her victory.
Even so, there is no evidence that the Clinton campaign did actually orchestrate the
Veselnitskaya meeting. Questions like this make it very important for the list of Fusion GPS
clients to become public. If Fusion GPS was still working for Veselnitskaya, or was in contact
with her in the lead-up to the meeting with Trump Jr., that might suggest the entire
Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative was created by Democrats or the Clinton campaign.
It is already ironic enough that Robert Mueller, the man leading the investigation into
Trump-Russia connections, is the same man who led the FBI when it covered up the investigation
into Rosatom right when it was convenient for Hillary Clinton. Unless some very damning
evidence finally comes out against Trump, this investigation seems likely to get worse and
worse for Clinton and the Democrats.
"Was The Trump Camp's Meeting With Russian Lawyer All A Clinton Set-Up?"
If that empty plus-size pants suit wasn't smart enough to pass the bar exam, she wasn't
nearly smart enough to pull something like that off. Podesta is so fucking dumb, that he got
nailed by a high school phishing scam, and his brother was already up to his nostrils in
Viktor Yanukovych shit, just like Manafort. As for Billy Bob, late stage syphilis has finally
taken it's toll his lizard brain. But let's face it, the Trump sons won't be shattering any
IQ test records, either. Those idiots set themselves up.
It almost certainly was all a set-up. Trump's campaign, and later his transition team, was
under surveillance by the Obama administration and they needed justification to continue the
spying. This whole thing was orchestrated dirty tricks by corrupt Obama and his paid
enforcers. Now Mueller is continuing the abuse of power as the media circus laughs and
applauds. We have serious problems.
Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS AND Crowdstrike, cyber security firm that claimed Russia
hacked DNC servers that FBI didn't give enough of a fuck to look at.
What people don't understand is, that the Russian PsyOp / False Narrative Script by the
Deep State & Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Psychopath Hillary Clinton Globalist was
the game plan all long.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted
False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections / Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full
retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
Plausible Deniability is the name of the game. If the Deep State could of pulled off the
False Narrative PsyOp of Russia influencing our Elections the Deep State could & will
hack into Russia's National Elections next March. Call it pay back.
The Deep State's destabilization campaign in Ukraine especially Crimea was part of the
ZioNeoConFascist Agenda to destabilize Russia during their upcoming elections.
Putin countered by expelling all Geroge Sorros NGO's from Russia. However, rest assured
those destabilization cells are in place to ready to be activated come Russia's next election
cycle.
I don't think "ironic" is the right word to use for Mueller's involvement in both brooming
any investigation of Hillary and Uranium One then and now leading the fake collusion witch
humt. I might choose "convenient", "suspicious", or "planned".
Another point, the last pages of the Pissgate dossier were added after the election. They
said Cohen went to Prague to meet with Russian agents about payment to the hackers. This was
used as cause for a FISA warrant to spy on Trump. What was McCains involvement, and the
FBIs.
Entrapment is as old
as civilization. "In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement
agent induces a person to commit a criminal offence that the person would have otherwise been
unlikely or unwilling to commit. [1] It "is the conception and
planning of an offence by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not
have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer." [2]
"
Previously I thought that members of Hillary entourage were complete idiots both as for
computer security and generally security wise. Now it looks like Trump entourage have has the
same problem: many of they were idiots.
In "After Snowden" world anybody who wants to communicate with a unknown foreign person via
Facebook of Twitter on issues of any political significance is an idiot. Because chances of hoax,
provocation of in case of Trump team "false flag operation" are nearly 100%. This way you can
implicate anybody in Russian ties: hire a hoaxer and ask him to pretend that he is Russian. To
simp0lify the matter ask him to use Skype to communicate with the target. Send a couple of
incriminating emails. Any of Nigerian spammers can be used for this purpose. They are already
trained. Rinse and repeat.
So how we can be sure that this idiot Papadopoulos was not set up? BTW he ws
born in 1987 -- so he just out of the college (graduated in 2009). What does he know about
foreign policy?He never has been an ambassador to an important country, words in State
Depertment, or servers as a senior fellow in some research institution which study those issues.
(he was "unpaid intern" in Hudson institute" in 2011) What foreign policy advisor role for such a
guy ? He looks like a huckster to me.
Of cause Kieren
McCarth in her joy over the development is unable to contemplate this question.
Notable quotes:
"... Papadopoulos has been assisting Mueller's special inquiry for several months, but word of this cooperation only emerged today when his guilty plea to making false statements to the FBI was unsealed. ..."
"... he used Facebook Messenger and Skype to communicate with a Russian government agent, called "the Professor," who promised to provide damaging information on the Clinton campaign. Emails, no less. ..."
"... the Professor showed interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS only after learning of his role." ..."
"... And then there is extensive evidence -- confirmed by Papadopoulos -- that he acted as a go-between for the Trump campaign and the Russian government, including being supplied with damaging information on the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... There are also emails from other Trump campaign staff -- so far unnamed -- that show explicit efforts to work with Russians in gathering damaging information on the real-estate tycoon's political rival. In other words, efforts to engage a foreign power to swing a US presidential election. ..."
"... For one, using Facebook to carry out highly dubious and potentially illegal activity is not a good idea. This is a social network that periodically changes account settings to keep up the pretense that it's not gathering and selling every snippet of information it can get out of you. Anything you say on Facebook may go straight down a pipe to the NSA and a database searchable by the FBI. It's called Section 702 . ..."
Former Trump foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos -- no, not that one -- has been
turned by ex-FBI director Robert Mueller as part of the latter's investigation into Trump
campaign team members. Mueller is probing allegations of obstruction of justice, money
laundering and other financial crimes, and collusion with Russian government agents seeking to
meddle with last year's US presidential election.
Papadopoulos has been assisting Mueller's special inquiry for several months, but word
of this cooperation only emerged
today when his guilty plea to making false statements to the FBI was unsealed.
Coincidentally, Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort surrendered
himself this morning to Mueller at his nearest FBI office, as requested, to answer
allegations ranging from making false statements to acting as a foreign agent.
Ex-Trump campaign official Rick Gates, also accused of conspiracy and money laundering,
handed himself in today, too. The indictment against the pair is here , and both deny any
wrongdoing.
Among the wealth of details in Papadopoulos' 14-page statement
[PDF] is the fact that he used Facebook Messenger and Skype to communicate with a Russian
government agent, called "the Professor," who promised to provide damaging information on the
Clinton campaign. Emails, no less.
"This isn't like he [the Professor]'s messaging me while I'm in April with Trump,"
Papadopoulos told the FBI. "I wasn't even on the Trump team." Except he was on the team in
April 2016. The Feds noted in their court paperwork: "Defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Professor
for the first time on or about March 14, 2016, after defendant PAPADOPOULOS had already learned
he would be a foreign policy advisor for the Campaign; the Professor showed interest in
defendant PAPADOPOULOS only after learning of his role."
And then there is extensive evidence -- confirmed by Papadopoulos -- that he acted as a
go-between for the Trump campaign and the Russian government, including being supplied with
damaging information on the Clinton campaign.
There are also emails from other Trump campaign staff -- so far unnamed -- that show
explicit efforts to work with Russians in gathering damaging information on the real-estate
tycoon's political rival. In other words, efforts to engage a foreign power to swing a US
presidential election.
But let's take a quick look at Facebook.
For one, using Facebook to carry out highly dubious and potentially illegal activity is
not a good idea. This is a social network that periodically changes account settings to keep up
the pretense that it's not gathering and selling every snippet of information it can get out of
you. Anything you say on Facebook may go straight down a pipe to the NSA and a database
searchable by the FBI. It's called
Section 702 .
Papadopoulos is obviously not a man well versed in spy craft. Something that becomes more
apparent when it's revealed the day after he was pulled in for questioning, he deleted his
entire Facebook account and started a new one. He also tried changing his phone number to
sidestep the Feds.
You can just imagine Mueller's team at their morning meeting: so how did the Papadopoulos
interview go yesterday? Well, this morning he deleted his Facebook account. Great, now we know
where to look.
... ... ...
"Virginia Governor – Gillespie vs. Northam" [
RealClearPolitics ]. The average of all polls: Northam 3.3% (Yesterday: 2.8%). Quinnipiac
weighs in, with Northam +17 (!!).
"Sanders, who gained his national following by running for the 2016 Democratic presidential
nomination, has refused to endorse the Democratic candidate, Ralph Northam, a mainstream progressive.
This signals the left-winger's determination to set ideological litmus tests for Democrats" [
Bloomberg ]. "Bannon, the former top strategist for President Donald Trump, is on a mission
to destroy the Republican Party establishment. In Virginia, he's helped pressure Republican Ed
Gillespie, a quintessential establishment figure, to embrace immigrant-bashing and race-baiting."
New Cold War
It's Manafort. And Papadopoulos. Two (2) documents were unsealed: Manafort's indictment, and
Papadopoulos's plea deal. Here they are:
1) Manafort: United States of America v. Paul J. Manafort and Richard W. Gates, III (
PDF ). (The PDF, via DK, is a searchable PDF as opposed to a scan.)
2) Papadopoulos: United States of American v. George Papadoplous (
PDF ).
As readers know, I haven't been following the ins and outs of all this with complete attention,
but as best I can tell, the Manafort indictment is designed to get Manafort to flip, and the Papadopoulos
plea signals the inducement for him to do so.
Taking Manafort first, the indictment looks like an especially florid scheme to evade Federal
taxes on consulting fees paid to entities controlled by Manafort by
Viktor Yanukovych
and his Party of Regions , by laundering it through nominees in Cyprus into real estate (and
rugs). There's nothing in the indictment about election "meddling," and the Russians appear only
at a second remove (as the ultimate backers of the Party of Regions). The Feds are also indicting
Manafort for acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government (in this case, Ukraine) which
would probably apply to half the Beltway, but never mind that.
Papadopoulos is juicier, from the Russki standpoint. Here is the salient paragraph, in which
Papadopoulos is charged with making false statements (rather a warning shot to the rest of the
players in this affair):
Now, the details of the Papadopoulos story are almost clownishly stupid -- a Russian "professor,"
Putin's "niece," Papadopoulos communicating with his Russki interlocutor via Skype (!) -- so it's
hard to know how serious an attempt this was. And if what the Russian professor says is true (we
don't know that), we don't know which email is at issue. Still, some Russians could have
been doing some "meddling," and some person in the Trump campaign knew about
it. Who else knew? Manafort? During the four months he headed Trump's campaign? Presumably, Mueller
can follow up the food chain. All this is, of course, very far from Clinton's original claim that
Trump is a Russian "puppet," a claim which moreover had and has the ultimate goal of treating
as treason advocacy for a
policy that is surely not prima facie crazed: That is, the idea that a Clintonite
cold war with Russia, or a hot proxy war in the Ukraine, might not be the best idea in the world.
Nevertheless, this was not a good day for the Trump administration.
"How to Interpret Robert Mueller's Charges Against Paul Manafort in the Russia Investigation"
[
WIRED ]. This is excellent (and recommended by
emptywheel , who I would link to except I'm getting CloudFlare errors from her site). This:
For all the talk of Russian collusion, there isn't really a federal crime that matches what
the press, critics, and Capitol Hill lawmakers have been calling collusion, a word that refers
legally to a narrow segment of antitrust law. And there's almost zero chance anyone will be
charged with treason, a charge that's only available to use against enemies in a declared war.
In other words, we can forget about the frothing and stamping of the parties which I can say
relieves me no end. And if readers with experience in complex Federal criminal prosecutions want
to chime in, great! Musical interlude
.
If the public reports are true, and there was a time where Paul Manafort was under a FISA
[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978] warrant before coming to the Trump campaign,
why is it the FBI never reached out to me as the campaign manager, never reached out to Donald
Trump and said "look, you might want to pause for a second and take a look before you bring
this guy on board as a volunteer to hunt delegates for you."
They never did that. He was under a FISA warrant, supposedly, both before and after his
tenure at the campaign and the FBI never notified the leading presidential candidate for a
major Republican Party race? Never notified him of a potential problem? This is a problem with
the FBI if you ask me.
I don't know if the FBI was required to do so.
Should they have informed a presidential candidate?
Hoping Tony Podesta loses a shoe close to whenever Midnight hits as this goes forward. I'm
told John is "ok". Tony, not so much. But the Podesta firm has always been thought of as a Democratic
shop, so the "both sides do it meme" may actually be proven out We'll see how this rolls. That
fact that this is all Ukraine right now makes me think we'll *never* figure out what really happened.
Which I guess (JFK ongoing redactions) goes without saying.
So, the question, begs, "Does Manafort as a bag man earn his fees?"
Because the reviews from his previous clients seem mixed, at best. Asking for a friend.
From Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:
1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or
in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of
Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court.
Giving aid and comfort to the nation's enemies does not require a declaration of war. It's
also disturbingly vague.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this
title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United
States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept.
13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
there hasn't been a case that I am aware of that didn't involve taking arms up against the
United States (Brown or the Whiskey Rebellion) or aiding a country we were at war with (Tokyo
rose).
No one is going to get convicted of treason, conspiracy against the United States is not treason,
and probably stems from his tax evasion charge.
Oddly, there are also state laws against treason. Either the Illinois or the Missouri law was
used against Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon denomination.
The McGuffin in the Papadopolous indictment is the Clinton e-mail messages. And what if they
emerge?
The article from Wired is enlightening because it takes a broad view of the FBI's goals and
the slowness of the U.S. criminal process. Emptywheel seems to think that it is all over, although
she admits that Papadopolous is a plain idiot. I fear that she is moving too fast. But then the
Watergate burglars were idiots, too.
All in all, I'd say let the indictments fall down like rain.
But I also recall that the Nixon saga was saved by clever old foxes like Sam Ervin and Judge
John Sirica, both of whom were highly underestimated by those in the know, you know. Yet I don't
see a Sam Ervin on the horizon. Enjoy the continuing constitutional crisis.
Mueller: Y'all know me. Know how I earn a livin'. I'll catch this bird for you, but it ain't
gonna be easy. Bad fish! Not like going down to the pond and chasing bluegills and tommycods.
This shark, swallow ya whole. Little shakin', little tenderizin', down you go. And we gotta do
it quick, that'll bring back the tourists, that'll put all your businesses on a payin' basis.
–The campaign doorkeeper is next. The son-in-law with no power. Just for being mishpokhe, poor
sob.
So there's no hope that, just like a scene from the Old Republic of Livy's first decade, Mueller
will round things up with
the case
for his own indictment ?
The veteran judge former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates
will appear in front of Monday afternoon has presided over a list of big-name defendants and
has experienced the criminal justice system firsthand -- when her son was convicted of dealing
heroin.
The case will then be handed over to an Obama-appointed judge who donated $1,000 to former
President Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign.
Find it yourself. Just Google "Roger Ailes casting couch News Corp phone hacking".
The logical inference is that "the Professor" was claiming to have the lost private server
emails, since that's what was on everybody's minds at the time. Unfortunately, the internet is
abuzz with wild speculation at the moment that this somehow proves foreknowledge of the DNC leaks,
but as the quoted passage shows there is nothing in the language of the plea to support that conclusion.
Nevertheless, expect it to be somberly reported across mainstream platforms as the "smoking gun"
that it isn't.
Papadopoulos does not currently stand accused of doing anything wrong other than lying to the
FBI. He might have a more interesting story to tell but it's just speculation at this point. Reading
through the plea it looks like this may be nothing more than a dumbass who got taken in by a couple
of charlatans and then lied about it, Sure, he may have some deeper dirt, or not, I guess we'll
find out.
Isn't it ironic that the Ukraine pops up here, aka the USGOV's favorite Ukronazis and erstwhile
cat's paw vs Russia? It's as stupid as blaming Iran (Shia) for Al Qaeda and ISIS (Sunni). I look
forward to seeing the convolutions that the MSM will go through to prove Ukraine = Russia. Hmmm,
what other US politicians are known for their ties to the Ukraine?
So, fill in the blank with any one of 'our' elected representatives in D.C.
"_____________ faces a long list of charges that includes conspiracy against the United
States, conspiracy to launder money, false statements, acting as an unregistered agent as a
foreign principal, making misleading statements in violation of the Foreign Agent Registration
Act, and seven counts of failing to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts. That's
a dozen in all.
Name one, come on, name a member of the House, or Senate who hasn't made them selves relatively
rich off lying and laundering, and influence peddling?
The total number of our elected 'leaders' that pass the smell test could fit in your average
mini van.
My Mom used to ask, "If everyone jumped off the bridge, would you do it?"
Anyone who knows me even the least bit knows I'm not making excuses for Trump Inc., I'm just
emphasizing how truly f*cked we are as concerns the mean level of ethics extant in our capital
city.
Finally reports about three successes in Mueller fishing expedition. If charges are proved,
Manafort is yet another corrupt player in Washington DC. Who milked the best friend of Joe Biden.
But the problem is that probably half of Washington lobbyists can be indicted on similar
charges.
After the indictment of Manafort and Gates was revealed on Monday morning, Trump tweeted :
"Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why
aren't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????"
The president added: "...Also, there is NO COLLUSION!"
Later, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, played down the connection
between the three men and the Trump campaign. She said of Manafort and Gates's indictment:
"Today's announcement has nothing to do with the president, presidential campaigns or any
campaign activity."
Sanders played down the role of Manafort, who joined the Trump campaign in March 2017 as
convention manager, focusing on winning delegates at the 2016 Republican convention, and was
promoted to campaign manager in June 2016 before resigning
in August over his links to Ukraine. She said: "Paul Manafort was brought in to lead the
delegate process, which he did, and was dismissed not too long after that."
She also insisted Papadopoulos's lies to the FBI about his contacts with Russia on behalf of the Trump campaign had
"nothing to do with the activities of the campaign", and repeatedly dismissed Papadopoulos as
"a volunteer member on an advisory council".
... ... ...
The charges allege the two men worked extensively for political figures and parties in
Ukraine and laundered millions of dollars in payment for that work by channelling it through a
web of companies, mostly in the US and Cyprus. They are accused of constructing elaborate
schemes to hide their earnings from the US government, and failing to register the foreign
interests for which they were lobbying.
The indictment alleges $75m in payments flowed through offshore accounts, of which Manafort
laundered more than $18m to buy property, goods and services in the US, hiding the income from
the government. It says Gates transferred $3m from the offshore accounts to other accounts he
controlled.
... ... ...
Yanukovych, whose rule was marked by rampant corruption in his inner circle, fled to Russia
during the Maidan revolution in February 2014. In August last year, an alleged "black ledger"
surfaced in Kiev that appeared to show millions of dollars of under-the-table payments to
numerous Yanukovych allies, including Manafort.
Ukraine's National Anticorruption Bureau posted 22 payments to Manafort between 2007 and
2012 with various vague descriptions such as "sociology" or "services". The payments totalled
$12.7m. Manafort said he never received any illegal payments but the scandal prompted him to
resign from Trump's campaign.
... ... ...
Although Manafort did not formally assume control of the Trump campaign until 20 June, when
campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was fired, Lewandowski said after his ejection: "Paul
Manafort has been in operational control of the campaign since 7 April. That's a fact."
Manafort also played the decisive role in ensuring that Trump picked the Indiana governor,
Mike Pence, to be his running mate.
Mercouris weighs in on the Manafort indictment, wherein I agree with his initial
assessment:
"It comes after what was in all other respects a disastrous two weeks for the true
believers in the Russiagate conspiracy with the revelation that the Democratic National
Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign financed the 'research' which resulted in the
Trump Dossier, and with mounting claims that (as I had previously suspected) the now
notorious meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
was indeed a sting set up by Fusion GPS, the intermediary company used by the DNC and the
Hillary Clinton campaign to fund the Trump Dossier.
"In light of this there has to be some suspicion that the decision to press charges
against Manafort and one of his aides now was intended at least in part to distract attention
from the revelations and to regain control of the Russiagate narrative, which has been
increasingly falling apart.
All the while Mueller spins his wheels, the really big criminals in this fiasco remain the
Clintons, Obamas, and staff that worked abetting their crimes.
Might be a wwya put swipe under the table Steele dociier. Also what is interesting is that
Bill and Hillary Clinton,
The Bonnie and Clyde of US polit , walk free, Manafort, being a small fish in a large pond of
international corruption, was caught in the net and is under arrest... They want him to talk.
Manafort will be under a lot of pressure to produce evidence of any Trump/Putin connection.
The special counsel's office considers Manafort a flight risk, and lawyers in Mueller's
office argued before Judge Deborah Robinson on Monday afternoon, citing the seriousness of the
charges and the extent of Manafort's ties abroad. The FBI took possession of Manafort's
passport yesterday. In a statement to reporters following the hearing, Manafort's lawyer, Kevin
Downing, called the charges against his client "ridiculous."
"There is no evidence that Mr. Manafort or the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian
government," Downing told reporters after Manafort's court appearance.
"Mr. Manafort represented pro-European Union campaigns for the Ukrainians. And in that, he
was seeking to further democracy, and to help the Ukraine come closer to the United States and
the EU."
"The claim that maintaining offshore accounts to bring all your funds into the United States
as a scheme to conceal from the United States government is ridiculous," he continued.
Downing called Mueller's prosecution of Manafort using the Foreign Agents Registration Act
"a very novel theory," point out that the government has only brought charges under the law six
times since 1966.
According to
the Hill , Manafort retained Downing, a former Department of Justice official, in August.
Downing is known for his work representing clients facing complex financial investigations.
* * *
Update: Democrat Adam Schiff, the ranking member on the House Intelligence committee, said
the indictments open up "new lines of inquiry" in the Russia probe, even after reports surfaced
earlier this week that many Republican members of Schiff's committee are trying to wind it
down.
Today's indictments of Manafort and Gates, and Papadopoulos' guilty plea are key
developments in Russia probe. Here's why: pic.twitter.com/ELNg3LPoe3
Update: Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has confirmed that the White House has no
intention of firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller. She added that the role of George
Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser during the campaign who pleaded guilty to obstruction
earlier this month, was "extremely limited."
Sanders reiterated that the Manafort indictment has "nothing to do with us," noting that his
alleged criminal activities took place before he joined the campaign. When asked if the
president now regrets hiring Manafort, she said she hadn't asked him about his feelings on the
matter. She also played down Papadopoulos's involvement with the campaign was minimal, saying
he met with a group of foreign policy advisers one time, and had his named included on a list
of advisers given to the Washington Post.
Sanders added that Manafort was hired to lead the campaign's delegate push ahead of the
convention, and was let go shortly after.
Did the FBI screw up in their search of Manafort's home?
"...we were immediately drawn to the revelation that evidence was collected that may not
have been covered by the warrant. That's a serious development, and one that Manafort's
attorneys will no doubt seize upon. But, is it necessarily illegal? Did the agents do
anything wrong? It's not clear. It certainly could raise some serious constitutional issues
that could taint the investigation."
Keep this fucker in mind too...Neil Kornze. Below is an excerpt from his Bio...
Before coming the Bureau of Land Management, Kornze worked as a Senior Advisor to U.S.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. In his work for Senator Reid, which spanned from
early 2003 to early 2011, he worked on a variety of public lands issues, including renewable
energy development, mining, water, outdoor recreation, rural development, and wildlife.
Kornze has also served as an international election observer in Macedonia, the Ukraine, and
Georgia and is co-author of an article in The Oxford Companion to American Law.
Tangled webs and pieces of shit. Ya think Mueller will be charging this bastard? No, me
either..
Mueller won't, my opinion on him is he's nothing more than a hatchet man to chop Trump.
Sessions should though. Some people still like the guy but I just don't trust him with the
shit he's done so far, like coming out and praising this Myhre. I know you read Redoubt News
but I wish more people did because they're doing a good job.
In a surprising ruling, Judge Navarro allowed disgraced BLM agent Dan Love to be
questioned for a full day on Monday. Love was obviously upset at the officials in the * DOJ
overriding his authority as the Incident Commander.
"The primary responsibility of the special counsel" is " to investigate Russian
interference with the 2016 presidential election "
Furthermore, Mannafort and even Trump himself had no idea he would be running for
president 5 years ago.
Um, the Special Council is way off target...by miles and years. Mannafort et.al. should
get what they deserve but the collusion is all Podesta/Hillary/Fusion GPS/Crowdstrike
et.al..
The Special Council needs to get crackin...and back on track
A pardon shuts down Mueller's investigation. This is a witch hunt and like all witch hunts
guilt is ascribed to the suspect by simply being named. So there is no justice here. This is
all partisan politics. The simple fact is that there are so many laws on the books that
honest people unwittingly break the law every day.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/you-break-the-law-every-day-without-even-knowing-it.html
This is a labyrinth that has no end. This is a fishing expedition and Muller is casting a
net far and wide and he will find a number of people who inadvertently broke the law. People
like Martha Stewart come to mind. James B. Comey burned Martha Stewart at the stake of
self-righteousness for lying to the FBI, but this same moral crusader found no wrong doing in
Hillary Clinton's email scandal. Clearly as far as the FBI is concerned, Martha was a real
paragon of evil while Hillary is the most altruistic person on the planet. Either the
Republicans get behind Trump and pull the trigger on the Clinton crime syndicate or they lose
the next election.
" In August 2016,
Manafort's connections to former Ukrainian PresidentViktor Yanukovych and his
Party of Regions
drew national attention in the USA, where it was reported that Manafort may have illegally
received $12.7 million in off-the-books funds from the Party of Regions. [29] On August
17, 2016, Donald Trump received his first security briefing. [30] Also, on August 17,
2016, the New York
Times reported on an internal staff memorandum from Manafort stating that Manafort would
"remain the campaign chairman and chief strategist, providing the big-picture, long-range
campaign vision". [31] However, two days
later, Trump announced his acceptance of Manafort's resignation from the campaign after
Stephen Bannon and
Kellyanne Conway
took on senior leadership roles within that campaign. [32][33] "
So a scumbag lobbyist got caught laundering money over many years BEFORE (and continuing
during and apparently unrelated to) Trump's campaign... and then exited the campaign. Unless
there is direct evidence of the Trump campaign using Manafort as a conduit for collusion with
the Russians (and I know of no evidence for that) this is irrelevant to charges of Trump
campaign Russian collusion.
But those facts will NOT be emphasized by the MSM.
AND speculation will persist that Mueller will use his Manafort leverage to drop more
shoes...for YEARS.
I just wonder if this little charade of Mueller's isn't revenge for the fact that
Yanukovich turned on the US and sided with Russia. Boy the deep state and the Pentagon sure
must have wanted Crimea really bad. Manafort seems to be the point guy.
Less the point guy and more the scapegoat. TPTB are pissed off at Lil Yanu for turning
coat on them and siding with Putin and they are pissed at Trump for getting elected. So they
figure they can try to ameliorate their frustration at these two disses with one scapegoat.
Ala Manafort. Look up Manaforts history. He has been doing this slimly kind of lobbyist for
3rd world and former Soviet satellite state strong men for three decades and for that same
period of time he has not been paying his taxes on there earnings (i.e. money laundering).
But so has the likes of the Podesta Brothers, Clinton, Pat Robertson and the like.
Unfortunetely for Manafort he step into the scapegoat pit for as the TPTB was eager to
display its anger throgh a ritual cutting of a political head sacrifice when he stepped in to
help Trump's campaign gather delegates.
However, what is evident, or what should become evident, there are king makers, and there
are bag men, and they are employed by ALL swamp creatures with equal zeal. The point here is,
this shit goes way beyond what is stated, as always. These snakes slither in the same swamp,
and not one among them has clean hands ...
So for all these dirty little charades, these stage props of "justice", the "collusion"
has been a collusion, and direct assault against the very interests of the American people,
for many, many moons ..
Yanukovych was democratically elected. He would be deeply shocked that he worked together
with a "scumbag lobbyist". Same for Trump, who would never have assumed Manaford had a shady
history. Never. Who could have known this? Not Nobody! Not No How!
The answer here is not everyone else does it why single out him, but instead time for
partisan Mueller's team to start investigating all the Republican Swamp rats and hold them
all to the same standards, except for those members of Mueller's team starting with Mueller
who are guilty themselves. Appoint a second equally viscous Republican Partison to
investigate and prosecute Hillary, Bill, Obama, Holder, DWS, Pelosi and the rest of the
Democrat Swamp Rats. We will probably need to appoint some additonal Federal Judges because
the courts are going to be very busy and swift justice is the best justice.
I listen to the opposition (PBS) in the morning for an hour while showering and getting to
work. Still talking Trump Russia collusion every other story and not a fucking word about
Hildebeasts and Muellers Uranium dealings.
All of that is just red meat for the plebs. It's not hard to spend that much on fine rugs.
And every fine home in Georgetown and the UES is stuffed to the gills with them.
They also get quite a laugh getting Joe Schmoe worked up about how much someone's haircut
cost. Nearly a million in clothes? A vintage Patek Phillipe watch and 2 tailored suits and
you're there. Or for the woman, a fews
enormous pearl necklaces and a Chanel suit.
The collusion by the MSM to keep this story from the public conscious is truly stunning.
Any MSM source other than Fox on this issue in the USA and you are a mushroom.
And international. Nothing in the UK in the past ten days since the dossier funding and
the Uranium-1 informant (who is going to personally buttfuck Mueller from every angle)
stories broke. The Telegraph's* last Hillary story was a fucking HRC through the ages fashion
piece.
And all the usual insidious cunts like Podesta, HRC and DWS sharing a houseboat on a river
in Egypt.
*I would personally like to inform any journo working for the DT that you are a spineless
worm. A piece of morally corrupted parasitic shit. Every single motherfucking one of you.
Scum assisting in making 1984 a reality.
Taxpayers need to cover the cost of security for Swampians in an era of increased
publicity and fast-paced communications. But Swampians of all types need to be banned from
lobbying and other money-making activities in foreign countries related to their time in
office, such as profitable not for profits with political donors in foreign countries, sales
of bomb-making material to foreign countries and accepting six-figure-to-multi-million-dollar
speechmaking fees from foreign interests that are interwoven with governments. These are
opportunities spawned by their time in office. All they have to do to make it legal is to
disclose it; it is just fine for government officials and their associates to make enormous
amounts of money off of catering to foreign interests unless they fail to disclose.
Short of a sea change in the way money is made due to automation, globalism is going to
keep sinking The Republic, with elite working families saying they are doing all of it for
average working families in America. Sell it with a fake-feminist, mommy-baby-concern theme,
and you can do any nefarious thing you want, whether in high or low places. Visit a local,
$10-per-hour, crony-mom call center or a momma-gang corporate back office for the rougher,
downscale version.
I am beginning to root for the robots. It is probably the only way we will see any real
change. Advances in technology in the pre-automation age let these elites operate businesses
and other institutions more easily around the globe to the detriment of The Republic and
their own country's widespread prosperity.
Maybe, a global, robotic workforce will return us to elected governments, where the
voters' interests are actually represented, rather than lobbyist-fed, elected representatives
representing the interests of American and foreign elites who are invested in near-slave
production around the globe, so-called emerging markets, war clean-up or lucrative NGOs.
Maybe, we we will see less lucrative-for-elites intervention in foreign countries under
the brand of helping mommies and babies around the globe that is
government/corporate-financed, with many of the financiers being global dictators.
Maybe, further advances in technology will nullify these globalist pathways to riches for
political elites, making it easier for the Founders' values to resurface. When robots are
doing most of the work, these near-slave labor and consumer markets abroad will be less
tantalizing, leaving only things like land, uranium deposits, oil and other geographic gems
to attract elite attention away from building up the USA.
I'm generic and any corruption that gets weeded out is fine by me. Yes, there is plenty
more but I will take whatever, from wherever as long as it is rooted out.
It must be autumn harverst time for sexual perverts and corrupt assholes. They seem to be
all coming out/forced out? Put them all in the same cells.
ATTN: Forward the following everyone & their mothers.
Published on Oct 24, 2017FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds exposes Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's conflict of interest in pursuing General Michael Flynn's case due to his direct
involvement as former FBI Director and his role in covering up and protecting Gulen Networks'
criminal operations within the United States, and demands that he steps down.
Mueller was supposed to investigate Russian Collusion. Instead, he and his team of Hillary
supporters, looked at everything that everyone on the Trump team did at any time, even before
they were connected to Trump. The whole thing has set a new precident for Special Counsels.
Don't investigate a crime, find a crime, any crime.
I think they should be turned loose on Congress. There would have to be special elections
across the country to fill the vacant seats.
Mueller was supposed to investigate Russian Collusion. Instead, he and his team of Hillary
supporters, looked at everything that everyone on the Trump team did at any time, even before
they were connected to Trump. The whole thing has set a new precident for Special Counsels.
Don't investigate a crime, find a crime, any crime.
I think they should be turned loose on Congress. There would have to be special elections
across the country to fill the vacant seats.
It's Manafort for not filing his taxes properly. But no charges related to "Russia
election meddling". 6 months into this fake investigation Mueller has got nothing related to
that..
Mueller is a deep state swamp creature and dishonest. He will now push Manafort to roll on
the President and manufacture a bogus crime. Watch.
Meanwhile, Hillary skates despite an mountain of evidence of actual crimes!
This is priceless. So the Buzzfeed scoop was actually legit? Manafort and thirteen
"suspicious" wire transfers? That were already looked at by the F.B.I.?? Five YEARS ago???
THIS is the BOMBSHELL BREAKING NEWS coming from the great Russian Collusion investigation???
I thought for sure the story was either a diversion or a bad joke. Dear lord. To call this
farce of an investigation a dog and pony show would be to cast dispersions upon all the
legitimate dog and pony shows throughout history. This is like a bad SNL skit. From the 90's.
With Jim Breuer as Goat Boy.
Dems.....you have been soooooo played! L.O.L. But PLEASE....please, please PLEASE.....keep
waiting for that silver bullet that will take down Trump to magically appear. That will
ensure you are COMPLETELY irrelevant in 2018.
How about we pin the execution on the Mueller for his cover up role in 9/11? He was acting
director of the inside deep state attack on the US that the FBI was clearly involved with as
well as the CIA and co.
Mueller belongs with his Bush and Cheney cohorts and all who were absolutely involved in
the 3 towers demolition destruction and mass murder of Americans.
The US no longer exists people, the government is completely over run and if you think you
still have a country... find yourself laughing at yourself in the mirror!
It's all a circus of madness now! Babylon will laughably fall, it's already begun.
This 16 second clip says it all about our US Special Prosecutors and those in control of
all of DC.
Hundreds of millions to have a 9/11 actor serve justice in finding a Russian collusion
where NONE exists. I hope Manafort shoves their noses in a big steaming pile of Dick Cheney's
steaming shit.
The real action is just beginning because they (Mueller and his party) think Manafort will
"flip" on Trump in order to get out of his problem with this indictment. Of course every
little retard liberal will think this is about Russian influence on the election even though
it clearly will not be. Half of this country is living in an alternate reality and that will
not end well for all of us.
According to the left, Trump is about to go to prison. According to the right, Hillary is
about to go to prison. I feel like very few are aware of both possibilities.
I see news networks saying Manafort could turn on others to implicate them. However it
seems to me, if that was the case, wouldnt they have already offered that deal to him before
charging him?
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created
by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent
Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security
complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia
has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to
have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary
and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of
further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.
Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative
circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked
Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.
Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver
Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their
naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin
Russia.
The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US
foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US
unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and
of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.
Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington
convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO
bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO
provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more
reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.
Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential
election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and
the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.
These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth.
"... "It's difficult to imagine that a campaign chairman, that the head of the DNC would not know of an expenditure of this magnitude and significance. But perhaps there's something more going on here. But certainly it's worth additional questioning of those two witnesses," ..."
"... "more than anyone." ..."
"... On the same day, Elias' law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented the Clinton campaign and the DNC, confirmed it had hired Fusion GPS in April 2016. The funding arrangement brokered in the spring of 2016 lasted until right before the election, AP reported earlier this week, citing sources familiar with the matter. ..."
"... The document, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged a compromising relationship between Trump and the Kremlin. It was finalized in December 2016, and published online by BuzzFeed in January. It contained unsubstantiated claims of links and allegations of deals between Moscow and the Trump campaign. ..."
"... It was funded initially by a Republican-funded journalism website, The Washington Free Beacon. However, the website insisted the enquiry had no Russian angle at that time. The alleged collusion between Trump and Russia became the focal point of the research after it was taken over by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... The Clinton campaign paid more than $5.6 million to Perkins Coie, recording the expenditures as "legal services," ..."
"... "legal and compliance consulting" ..."
"... "fake dossier," ..."
"... "Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier," ..."
"... "so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out." ..."
Several top Democrats should be summoned to testify before the US Senate Intelligence
Committee on the infamous Trump-Russia dossier, US Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) has said. Her
remarks were prompted by new revelations linking the file to the Democratic Party and the
Clinton campaign, Collins, who is a member of the Senate's Intelligence Committee, was emphatic
that Hillary Clinton's election campaign manager, John Podesta, and the former head of the
Democratic National Committee (DNC), Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "absolutely need to be
recalled."
She added that they were most likely aware of the Democrats role in the preparation of this
document.
"It's difficult to imagine that a campaign chairman, that the head of the DNC would not
know of an expenditure of this magnitude and significance. But perhaps there's something more
going on here. But certainly it's worth additional questioning of those two witnesses,"
she told CBS' Face the Nation.
She said further that Marc Elias, a lawyer representing Hillary for America and the DNC,
should be questioned "more than anyone." On Tuesday, the Washington Post alleged that
Elias retained research firm Fusion GPS in April 2016 to continue research into Trump's alleged
coordination with Russia; and which later became known as the Steele dossier.
On the same day, Elias' law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented the Clinton campaign
and the DNC, confirmed it had hired Fusion GPS in April 2016. The funding arrangement brokered
in the spring of 2016 lasted until right before the election, AP reported earlier this week,
citing sources familiar with the matter.
The document, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged a compromising
relationship between Trump and the Kremlin. It was finalized in December 2016, and published
online by BuzzFeed in January. It contained unsubstantiated claims of links and allegations of
deals between Moscow and the Trump campaign.
It was funded initially by a Republican-funded journalism website, The Washington Free
Beacon. However, the website insisted the enquiry had no Russian angle at that time. The
alleged collusion between Trump and Russia became the focal point of the research after it was
taken over by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
The Clinton campaign paid more than $5.6 million to Perkins Coie, recording the
expenditures as "legal services," according to the Federal Election Commission. The
DNC paid the law firm more than $2.9 million for "legal and compliance consulting" and
reported $66,500 for research consulting.
Taking note of the recent revelations concerning the dossier, the US House Intelligence
Committee has been granted access to Fusion GPS bank account records as part of its
investigation into the alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
On Sunday, Donald Trump lashed out in a series of tweets at the dossier and said something
should be done about Hillary Clinton's links to the "fake dossier," as the US
president put it.
"Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of
investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier," he wrote, later adding, that there is "so
much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out."
Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of
investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?),....
Earlier this week, Trump said it is "commonly agreed" that there was no collusion
between his presidential bid and the Russian government, and accused Clinton of being the one
who really colluded with Russia.
"... The Pinochet File was selected as one of "The Best Books of 2003" in the nonfiction category by the Los Angeles Times. The New Yorker said, "The evidence that Kornbluh has gathered is overwhelming." in its review. The Newsweek review of The Pinochet File describes it as "...actually two distinct but intersecting books. The first is a narrative account of the Nixon administration's involvement in Chile. Its mission was to make sure that Allende's election in 1970 didn't serve as a model for leftist candidates elsewhere. The second consists of the reproduction of hundreds of salient intelligence documents released in 1999 and 2000 in response to requests by President Bill Clinton." ..."
It covers over approximately two decades of declassified documents, from the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), White House, and United States
Department of State, regarding American covert activities in Chile. It is based on more than
24,000 previously classified documents that were released as part of the Chilean
Declassification Project during the Clinton administration, between June 1999 and June
2000.
The Pinochet File was selected as one of "The Best Books of 2003" in the nonfiction
category by the Los Angeles Times. The New Yorker said, "The evidence that Kornbluh has
gathered is overwhelming." in its review. The Newsweek review of The Pinochet File describes it
as "...actually two distinct but intersecting books. The first is a narrative account of the
Nixon administration's involvement in Chile. Its mission was to make sure that Allende's
election in 1970 didn't serve as a model for leftist candidates elsewhere. The second consists
of the reproduction of hundreds of salient intelligence documents released in 1999 and 2000 in
response to requests by President Bill Clinton."
The inclusion of key source documents allows the reader not only to corroborate Kornbluh's
findings, but to acquire a flavor of the extent of U.S. covert activities within Chile, and to
understand the tenor of conversation in the White House and CIA regarding Salvador Allende's
presidency. While the U.S. claimed to support Chile and its democratic election process, the
documents show intricate and extensive attempts first to prevent Allende from being elected,
and then to overthrow him with a coup d'état. The coup d'état required first
removing the commander in chief of the Chilean armed forces (General René Schneider),
who opposed military interference in political situations; he was assassinated by CIA-funded
coup plotters (retired General Roberto Viaux and active duty General Camilo Valenzuela). Once
Augusto Pinochet took power, his human rights violations were tolerated, even though the U.S.
knew that thousands of people had been detained and American citizens Charles Horman and Frank
Teruggi murdered. The CIA fostered an extensive cover-up of its involvement in fomenting the
coup, including dissembling to the Church Committee. The White House also withheld key
documents. Subsequently, the role of the US in this period of history was not correctly
understood based solely on the findings released at that time. Furthermore, extensive black
propaganda, especially in El Mercurio, shaped world perceptions of Allende, essentially
painting him as a Communist pawn and portraying the wreckage of the Chilean economy as due to
his decisions. In contrast, the declassified documents show that Richard Nixon enacted an
"invisible blockade" in concert with American multinational corporations and international
banking organizations, which were pressured to withhold loan refinancing. Consequently, much of
the history that has been written without access to these documents may need to be reexamined,
as Kornbluh discusses in the book's introduction:
Indeed, the documents contain new information on virtually every major issue, episode, and
scandal that pockmark this controversial era. They cover events such as Project FUBELT, the
CIA's covert action to block Salvador Allende from becoming president of Chile in the fall of
1970; the assassination of Chilean commander-in-chief René Schneider; U.S. strategy and
operations to destabilize the Allende government; the degree of American support for the coup;
the postcoup executions of American citizens; the origins and operations of Pinochet's secret
police, DINA, CIA ties to DINA chief Manuel Contreras, Operation Condor, the terrorist
car-bombing of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington, D.C., the murder by burning of
Washington resident Rodrigo Rojas, and Pinochet's final efforts to thwart a transition to
civilian rule.
The inclusion of key source documents provide a rare behind-the-scenes view of covert regime
change in operation. Key documents from the CIA, United States National Security Council (NSC),
White House, DIA, and State Department were declassified in the year 2000. The more than 24,000
records correspond to an average of about three records per day gathered over two decades and
Kornbluh's analysis was not complete and in print until 2003.
Thank you, I really enjoyed this documentary, it summarizes what many latinoamericans know or
sense, in fact the same type of interventions have taken place in Argentina, Colombia,
Panama, Mexico, Granada, Bolivia, Cuba, not to mention many other countries in the rest of
the planet. It's pure modern imperialism.
"... May the example catch on. Journalists who investigated the Trump dossier now say their Democratic sources lied to them. That's already a start. Please, Democrats, release journalists from their confidentiality agreements so they can tell us more about your lying. ..."
"... The revelations provide new context for Harry Reid's "October surprise," his attempt 10 days before Election Day to lever the dossier's allegations into the press with a public letter to then-FBI Director James Comey accusing him of withholding "explosive information." ..."
"... This is a completely novel tactic in U.S. politics, applying to a hostile foreign power for lurid stories about a domestic opponent. Mr. Reid, please tell us more about your role. ..."
"... He failed to mention, though, that the Trump dossier was manufactured by Democrats paying a D.C. law firm to pay a D.C. "research" firm to pay a retired British spook to pay unknown, unidentified Russians to tell stories about Mr. Trump, in reckless disregard for whether the stories were true. ..."
"... Even so, journalists are presumed to know their sources, not to have paid a long chain of surrogates to elicit sensational claims from perfect strangers, let alone anonymous agents of a foreign regime with a known habit of disinformation. It is impossible to exaggerate how reckless Democrats have been under this standard. If they found the Trump dossier on the sidewalk, they'd be in a better ethical position now. Let's hear what Mr. Schiff knew and when he knew it. ..."
"... In closed hearings, he reportedly acknowledged that his intervention in the Hillary Clinton email case was prompted by what is now understood to have been planted, fake Russian intelligence. The fake Russian intelligence purported to discuss a nonexistent email between then-DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz and George Soros-employed activist Leonard Benardo. ..."
In a series if tweets this
morning , President Trump has exposed some of the narratives that much of the mainstream
media seems loathed to touch...
Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation
on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?), the Uranium to Russia deal, the 33,000 plus
deleted Emails, the Comey fix and so much more.
Instead they look at phony Trump/Russia "collusion," which doesn't exist.
The Dems are using this terrible (and bad for our country) Witch Hunt for evil politics, but
the R's are now fighting back like never before.
There is so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out. DO
SOMETHING!
And while Democrats and their mouthpieces continues to try and focus attention on the
unverified frivolous claims within the dossier - as opposed to the illegalities of the
dossier's production, collusion, and exhibition - The Wall Street
Journal's Holman Jenkins warns then that the Trump Dossier dam is breaking ...
A U.S. political party applied to a hostile power for lurid stories about a domestic
opponent.
'Tis the season of tossing out nondisclosure agreements. Victims and employees of Harvey
Weinstein clamor to be released from their NDAs so they can talk about his abuse. Perkins Coie,
the Washington law firm for the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton campaign, showed the way
by voluntarily releasing Fusion GPS from its duty to remain mum on Democrats who funded the
notorious Trump dossier.
May the example catch on. Journalists who investigated the Trump dossier now say their
Democratic sources lied to them. That's already a start. Please, Democrats, release journalists
from their confidentiality agreements so they can tell us more about your lying.
The revelations provide new context for Harry Reid's "October surprise," his attempt 10 days
before Election Day to lever the dossier's allegations into the press with a public letter
to then-FBI Director James Comey accusing him of withholding "explosive information."
Mr. Reid knows how the responsible press works. Implausible, scurrilous and unsupported
allegations are not reportable, but a government official making public reference to such
allegations is reportable.
Mr. Reid, though, failed to mention his party's role in concocting the allegations, much
less that the manner of its doing so left him no reason to suppose the charges were anything
but tall tales spun by Russian intelligence officials in response to danglings of Democratic
money.
This is a completely novel tactic in U.S. politics, applying to a hostile foreign power for
lurid stories about a domestic opponent. Mr. Reid, please tell us more about your role.
Let's also hear from Adam Schiff, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He claimed on TV to have "circumstantial" and "more than circumstantial" evidence of Trump
collusion with Russia. In the event, what he delivered in a committee hearing was a litany of routine, innocuous
business and diplomatic contacts between Trump associates and Russian citizens, interspersed
with claims from the Trump dossier.
He failed to mention, though, that the Trump dossier was manufactured by Democrats paying a
D.C. law firm to pay a D.C. "research" firm to pay a retired British spook to pay unknown,
unidentified Russians to tell stories about Mr. Trump, in reckless disregard for whether the
stories were true.
Mr. Schiff, a Harvard Law graduate, will know the phrase is not our coinage. "Reckless
disregard" is the standard by which the Supreme Court says, even in a country that bends over
backward to protect the press at the expense of public figures, the press can be held liable
for defamatory untruths about a public figure.
Even so, journalists are presumed to know their sources, not to have paid a long chain of
surrogates to elicit sensational claims from perfect strangers, let alone anonymous agents of a
foreign regime with a known habit of disinformation. It is impossible to exaggerate how
reckless Democrats have been under this standard. If they found the Trump dossier on the
sidewalk, they'd be in a better ethical position now. Let's hear what Mr. Schiff knew and when
he knew it.
Finally, let us hear from James Comey.
The Trump dossier was reckless and irresponsible in the extreme, but only consequential
after Election Day. It didn't prevent Mr. Trump from becoming president.
In the new spirit of non-non-disclosure, it's time for Mr. Comey to tell us about the
Russian intelligence scam that may really have changed the election outcome.
In closed hearings, he reportedly
acknowledged that his intervention in the Hillary Clinton email case was prompted by what
is now understood to have been planted, fake Russian intelligence. The fake Russian
intelligence purported to discuss a nonexistent email between then-DNC chief Debbie Wasserman
Schultz and George Soros-employed activist Leonard Benardo.
This led directly to Mr. Comey's second intervention, reopening the case 11 days before
Election Day, a shocking development that appears now to have
moved enough votes into Mr. Trump's column to account for his win.
At the time, the press was all too happy to
blame Bill Clinton for his wife's loss when Mr. Comey, for nonclassified consumption, cited
Mr. Clinton's tarmac meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch as the reason for his
intervention.
The press is silent now.
The new story satisfies nobody's agenda, and only makes the FBI look foolish. Mr. Trump is
not eager to hear his victory portrayed as an FBI-precipitated accident. Democrats cling to
their increasingly washed-out theory of Trump-Russia collusion.
And yet, if Mr. Comey's antic intervention in response to Russian disinformation
inadvertently led to Mr. Trump becoming president, this was the most consequential outcome by
far.
* * *
President Trump has the final word however, asking (and answering a key question) - All of
this "Russia" talk right when the Republicans are making their big push for historic Tax Cuts
& Reform. Is this coincidental? NOT!
All of this "Russia" talk right when the Republicans are making their big push for historic
Tax Cuts & Reform. Is this coincidental? NOT!
Manafort dealing with Yanukovich were long before 2016 elections. So this is king of
"overextension" of Muller mandate (which was never completely defined anyway to allow digging
durt)
Notable quotes:
"... Just in case there's someone here who's relatively new to the party, please be advised that Viktor Yanukovych was an American lackey whose campaign was orchestrated and staffed by ex-Clinton staffers. ..."
"... Obviously Manafort failed to establish a charitable foundation to launder funds or label these funds "speaking fees" before receiving them. It is good to know that 23 attorneys and millions of dollars in a tax-payer-funded investigation have discovered potential tax violations that may have shorted the U.S. Treasury of a few hundred thousand dollars. ..."
As speculation mounts that Paul Manafort might be the target of the
sealed indictments reportedly approved by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's grand jury,
Buzzfeed is reporting new details of Mueller's probe into Manafort, seemingly a hint that
he will in fact be one of, if not the only, target taken into custody tomorrow.
The FBI's investigation of Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, includes a
keen focus on a series of suspicious wire transfers in which offshore companies linked to
Manafort moved more than $3 million all over the globe between 2012 and 2013.Much of the money
came into the United States.
So back in 2012 Manafort was working for the Podesta group. Not Trump. And that assclown
Robert Muller has spent far more than $3 million on this political witch hunt. What a fucking
joke. Is that the best they got?
" ... notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was supported by
the Kremlin ... ."
Just in case there's someone here who's relatively new to the party, please be advised that
Viktor Yanukovych was an American lackey whose campaign was orchestrated and staffed by
ex-Clinton staffers.
Unfortunately for Messr. Yanukovych and the people of Ukaraine, he decided not to do
America's bidding after all, but instead to sensibly seek trade relations with Russia, which
made sense financially, geographically, and socially.
At which point (need I say?), he fell out of favor with his American backers and was
replaced in an American-funded coup by American backed Nazis.
Manafort is too close to the Podesta Group. Mueller is despicable and desperate...now to
bait a trap for the President. Kushner, a couple of russian flunkirs...and daddy's girl are the
best cheese.
Yeah, same ole shit, bring an indictment against someone for something that happened YEARS
BEFORE the 2016 election (which is not within the scope of Grand Inquisitor Muellers purview)
in the hopes he can get Manafort to lie/impugn or otherwise implicate Trump on "Russian
collusion". So, they got nuffin and this proves it.
Time for Mueller to be fired.
Or better yet , put the hapless Mueller's sorry ass on the stand and question him about why
he stopped investigating the Uranium One deal after getting some low-grade actors and what
exactly were the circumstances of him being used as "a bagman" for stolen uranium
;-)
Tony Podesta and Paul Manefort had close ties. This rabbit hole runs deep and wide, and will
prove that the concept of an American bilateral political system is a false narrative designed
to divide and rule.
"The Podesta Group was one of several firms that worked on a Manafort-led campaign for a
nonprofit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU). The campaign promoted
Ukraine's image in the West and was reportedly backed by the Party of Regions, a pro-Russian
political party in Ukraine that was previously led by former Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovych"
BLOW BACK onto the Dems and Clintonistas.... let's hope. AND the entirety of Congress, and
ALL the Ukranian meddlers if all the suspicious transfers are investigated.
Absolutely, if they are interested in 2016 US election meddling by Ukrainians, then there is
no point looking at Yanukovych or the formerly ruling Party of Regions. Long gone by then,
banned from Parliament by their political opponents.
If after 5 months this is all they have ... a 4 year old wire transfer for something ... thw
WSJ will print on Tuesday "IS THAT ALL YOU HAVE???" Expect Mueller crucifiction shortly
afterward.
Manafort is the poptop on the can of suspicious transfer worms about to be opened. 3 mil is
chicken feed, but the precedence is priceless. Lots of loose bowels tomorrow. lol
It hardly makes sense to investigate incidents between 2012 and 2013, in an investigation
focusing on the year 2016. However, there are some other possibilities. If they know they
have Manafort nailed for these charges, this could give Muelller leverage to make a deal with
Manafort for dirty info he may have on Trump.
Trump, of course, could pardon Manafort, but, as the article stated, the State of NY is
also going after Manafort. Trump can't pardon a state case. Additionally, NY State is also in
discovery for the Trump emoluments case with Judge George Daniels (Obama appointee), and
Trump will be unable to pardon any possible witnesses or alleged co-defendants (friends and
family).
No question about it, this is a fishing expedition, and the Special Prosecutor is sending
his fleet of fishing trawlers from sea to shining sea.
Obviously Manafort failed to establish a charitable foundation to launder funds or
label
these funds "speaking fees" before receiving them. It is good to know that 23 attorneys and
millions of dollars in a tax-payer-funded investigation have discovered potential tax
violations that may have shorted the U.S. Treasury of a few hundred thousand dollars.
"... Since then there has been nothing, a clear sign that the search of Manafort's house has come up with nothing, and that the pressure to get Manafort to talk by dangling threats of indictment in front of him have resulted in nothing. ..."
Even as the Trump administration disintegrates – with the
President publicly quarrelling with his Secretary of State, and his Chief of Staff forced to
deny he is about to resign – the scandal which more than anything else has defined this
Presidency has disintegrated into total lunacy.
Consider these facts:
1) The Mueller investigation
Just a few weeks ago the media was full of reports of how Special Counsel Mueller's
investigation was "closing in" on the President and his campaign team. The focus of media
interest was on an early morning search in July of the house of Paul Manafort, the campaign
professional who at one time acted as the Trump campaign's chairman, with
lurid headlines that he was about to be indicted, though it was never made clear for
what.
Since then there has been nothing, a clear sign that the search of Manafort's house has come
up with nothing, and that the pressure to get Manafort to talk by dangling threats of
indictment in front of him have resulted in nothing.
In all other respects a curtain of silence has fallen on Mueller's investigation, a strong
sign that after its failure to "break" Manafort it no longer has a clear strategy of what to
do.
"... At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and his campaign and to deflect the revelations of her own campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote to FBI head James Comey and demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" be investigated. In September Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received." ..."
"... The linkage between the dossier and the timing of the Democratic Party attempt to tie Trump to Moscow is significant given what has been revealed over the past several days. As it turns out, it has been confirmed that Steele's firm Fusion GPS was indeed paid not only by the DNC, but also by the Clinton Campaign itself. A Washington lawyer named Marc Elias, whose firm Perkins Coie worked for both the DNC and Hillary, was the go-between on the arrangement, which began in April 2016 and continued until the election. ..."
"... As a former intelligence officer who has seen numerous overseas investigations done for clients, I can say with some confidence that the Steele Dossier is a composite of some fact, a lot of speculation, and even occasional fiction. Some indisputable and confirmable information is inevitably used to provide credibility for a lot of speculation and false stories that were intended to sow doubt and confusion. Gossip and rumors are reported as fact, with the whole product being put together in such a fashion as to appear credible to satisfy a client interested in exploitable information rather than the truth. Including some proper names, which the dossier does occasionally, provides credibility and the FBI's ability to confirm some of the dates and places regarding travel and meetings provided bona fides ..."
"... The dossier was designed to dig up "dirt" on Trump and his associates, but, more to the point, it was clearly intended from the start to do so by manufacturing and nurturing a Russian angle. It sought to discredit Donald Trump and to deceive the public, which suggests that Trump has been right all along regarding something like a conspiracy against him which included the active participation of the FBI and possibly other national security agencies. ..."
"... Perspectives expressed in op-eds are not those of The Daily Caller. ..."
The central mystery involving what has become known as Russiagate is the lack of any real
understanding of what exactly took place. It is alleged in some circles that Moscow somehow
interfered in the 2016 Presidential election and might even have tilted the result in favor of
candidate Donald Trump. Others suspect that the tale is politically motivated in an attempt to
exonerate Hillary Clinton and find Donald Trump or his associates guilty of collusion with an
unfriendly foreign government.
Caught in between are those who are not completely convinced by either narrative and are
demanding evidence to confirm that there was a sequence of events involving Russia and various
American individuals that demonstrates both intent and actual steps taken which would lend
credibility to such a hypothesis. So far, in spite of a year and a half of highly intrusive
investigation, there has been remarkably little evidence of anything apart from the
unchallengeable fact that someone took files from John Podesta as well as the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) computers and the stolen information wound up at WikiLeaks.
One of the most damaging revelations made regarding Donald Trump consisted of the so-called
"Dossier," which had been compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.
Initial reports suggested that Steele's investigation was commissioned initially by a
Republican opponent of Trump, possibly Jeb Bush, and later it was possibly continued by someone
connected to the Democratic Party. This genesis of the document was widely reported at the time
but no "names" were attached to the claims even though the identities of those who had
commissioned the work were known to some journalists who had uncovered
additional details relating to the investigation.
The drafts of some parts of the document itself
began to make the rounds in Washington during the summer of 2016, though the
entire text was not surfaced in the media until January. The dossier was reportedly still
being worked on in June by Steele and by one account was turned over to the FBI in Rome by him
in July . It later was passed to John McCain in November and was presented to FBI Director
James Comey for verification, which he agreed to do.
The Steele Dossier contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's
connection to the Vladimir Putin regime as a businessman who sought and obtained significant,
and possibly illegal, favors on real estate transactions from the Russian government. On a more
personal level, it also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades with prostitutes at
the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow. Few of the allegations could be verified as the report relied
on mostly unnamed, unidentifiable sources. On a more serious note, the dossier concluded with
an assessment that Donald Trump was compromised by the Russian intelligence services and could
be blackmailed.
At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with
Russia as a way to discredit him and his campaign and to deflect the revelations of her own
campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
wrote to FBI head James Comey and
demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's
presidential campaign" be investigated. In September Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative
Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused the
Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received."
The linkage between the dossier and the timing of the Democratic Party attempt to tie Trump
to Moscow is significant given what has been revealed over the past several days. As it turns
out, it has been confirmed that Steele's firm Fusion GPS was indeed paid not only by the DNC,
but also by the Clinton Campaign itself. A Washington lawyer named Marc Elias, whose firm
Perkins Coie worked for both the DNC and Hillary, was the go-between
on the arrangement, which began in April 2016 and continued until the election.
As a former intelligence officer who has seen numerous overseas investigations done for
clients, I can say with some confidence that the Steele Dossier is a composite of some fact, a
lot of speculation, and even occasional fiction. Some indisputable and confirmable information
is inevitably used to provide credibility for a lot of speculation and false stories that were
intended to sow doubt and confusion. Gossip and rumors are reported as fact, with the whole
product being put together in such a fashion as to appear credible to satisfy a client
interested in exploitable information rather than the truth. Including some proper names, which
the dossier does occasionally, provides credibility and the FBI's ability to confirm some of
the dates and places regarding travel and meetings provided bona fides for the entire
document and resulted in the launching of a top-level law enforcement investigation.
The dossier was designed to dig up "dirt" on Trump and his associates, but, more to the
point, it was clearly intended from the start to do so by manufacturing and nurturing a Russian
angle. It sought to discredit Donald Trump and to deceive the public, which suggests that Trump
has been right all along regarding something like a conspiracy against him which included the
active participation of the FBI and possibly other national security agencies.
The president also comes across as credible vis-à-vis his critics because of what has
become evident since the dossier was surfaced. The clearly politically motivated multiple
investigations carried out so far in which no rock has been unturned have come up with
absolutely nothing, either in the form of criminal charges or in terms of actual collusion with
a foreign government. And, one might add, there has been little in the way of evidence to
sustain the charge that Russia sought to influence the election and might even have succeeded
in doing so. But there is one thing new that we do know now: Russiagate began within the
Clinton Campaign headquarters.
Phil Giraldi is a former CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer who spent 20
years overseas in Europe and the Middle East working terrorism cases.
Perspectives expressed in op-eds are not those of The Daily Caller.
"... all the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states surveillance of Hillary's opposition. First the NKVD came for GOPsters........ Stop whining about fascist threats. DNC neoliberal gestapo is working ..."
"... The dems' failed coup the demise of their partisan deep state surveillance. The US cannot afford to allow the crooked democrat party to abide. ..."
all the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states
surveillance of Hillary's opposition. First the NKVD came for GOPsters........ Stop whining about
fascist threats. DNC neoliberal gestapo is working
"... Nutbag "journalist" John Nichols is writing for The Progressive and pushing "The Case For Impeachment" by citing Congressman Brad Sherman: ""But we must move forward as quickly as possible to ensure a competent government that respects the Constitution and the rule of law . . . " ..."
"... Pardon me, but I could say the same thing about every presidential administration since Truman, but most particularly about Clinton, Bush, and Obama--the trend going ever more incompetent, unlawful and unconstitutional, with millions of innocents dead as a result. ..."
Nutbag "journalist" John Nichols is writing for The Progressive and pushing "The Case
For Impeachment" by citing Congressman Brad Sherman: ""But we must move forward as quickly as
possible to ensure a competent government that respects the Constitution and the rule of law .
. . "
Pardon me, but I could say the same thing about every presidential administration since
Truman, but most particularly about Clinton, Bush, and Obama--the trend going ever more incompetent,
unlawful and unconstitutional, with millions of innocents dead as a result.
Yes, Trump's following
that same road, although Trump's very far from "the most irresponsible and lawless President in
American history," as Nichols alleges--his three immediate predecessors though certainly rate
that condemnation.
http://progressive.org/magazine/the-case-for-impeachment/
I wish I could just laugh like crazy at the absurdity of our current dilemma, but far too many
people are dying as a result for it to be anything but humorous.
BTW this is yet another leak. Now about grand jury deliberations. And of cause it comes from
CNN
What is
interesting is that in view of troubles for Hillary with DNC financing of Steele
dossier it looks like the deep state switched to the counterattack mode. And Mueller task
was and is to dig dirt, that's why 2013 events are now coming to the focus. How they are related
to Presidential elections is unclear.
But fishing expeditions against officials are typically successful. As Lavrentiy Beria used to
say "Show Me The Man, And I'll Show You The Crime"
Notable quotes:
"... "I'd like to see it end. Look, the whole Russian thing was an excuse (by the Democrats)," he said. "So that was just an excuse for the Democrats losing an election that, frankly, they have a big advantage in the Electoral College. ... So there has been absolutely no collusion. ... They ought to get to the end of it because I think the American public is sick of it." ..."
"... (Note: White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her top two deputies were asked to respond to the CNN report. None of the senior White House officials responded by time of publication.) ..."
A Washington, D.C., federal grand jury has approved a set of initial charges stemming from
the Robert S. Mueller III-led investigation into Russia's meddling into the 2016 U.S.
presidential election. CNN was
the first to report that the former FBI director turned special counsel could take the
first individuals into custody as soon as Monday.
While all indications are that President Donald Trump has yet to be interviewed by Mueller,
there's a list of his top 2016 campaign aides, current and former White House aides and
longtime confidants who could be rounded up by Mueller's team early next week.
Here are five [possible] indictments and related outcomes that are possible then:
Paul Manafort is indicted. We know that the former Trump campaign chairman has plenty of
ties to Russia and other former clients in the region, including former senior Ukrainian
leaders.
Michael Flynn is indicted. The retired Army three-star general was once a well-respected
military intelligence officer. He rose through the ranks to lead the Pentagon's top espionage
entity, the Defense Intelligence Agency. Then, former aides and confidants
have told NPR and other outlets, something changed.
Flynn became enamored with the kind of conservative conspiracy theories that helped power
Trump to the White House. The longtime soldier, who had gone into the consulting world after
being fired from the DIA by President Barack Obama , became a leading national
security and foreign policy adviser to candidate Trump.
"We believe this paper trail must be pursued to answer the gravest question of all: Did Gen.
Flynn seek to change the course of our country's national security to benefit the same private
interests he previously promoted, whether by advising President Trump, interacting with foreign
officials, or influencing other members of the Trump administration?" House Oversight ranking
member Elijah E.
Cummings wrote in a recent letter to panel Chairman Trey Gowdy that featured nearly 20
other Democratic signatures.
Carter Page is indicted. The Trump-connected energy consultant came under scrutiny in 2016
for alleged questionable ties to Putin's government while he was part of the Trump
campaign.
Though Page has denied any nefarious links to Russian officials, he has informed the Senate
Intelligence Committee that
he plans to plead the Fifth if called to testify in that panel's Russia probe. He is slated
to appear before the House Intelligence Committee next week but has given no indication if he
will be cooperative in that investigation.
After nearly three hours of testimony before Senate Intelligence staffers on July 24,
Kushner stood outside the White House and denied colluding with Russian officials during the
2016 campaign, saying all of his actions were both legal and proper.
"If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer," Trump Jr. wrote during the
email exchange with Rob Goldstone, a British-born entertainment publicist who met his father
when he was trying to do business in Russia. Their email exchange began on June 3, 2016, about
a month and a half before Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination.
If Mueller is targeting the commander in chief, going after his son or son-in-law this early
would be a way of getting Trump's attention.
"No, not at all," Trump told reporters during an impromptu Oct. 16 Rose Garden press
conference when asked if he was considering firing Mueller from the special counsel post.
But that was before the president, who values and rewards loyalty, was facing the first wave
of indictments in the Russia probe. And Trump made his disgust clear that day about the ongoing
DOJ investigation.
"I'd like to see it end. Look, the whole Russian thing was an excuse (by the Democrats)," he
said. "So that was just an excuse for the Democrats losing an election that, frankly, they have
a big advantage in the Electoral College. ... So there has been absolutely no collusion. ...
They ought to get to the end of it because I think the American public is sick of it."
There is a modern precedent, though controversial and presidency-ending, for such a
move.
The modern standard bearer is Richard Nixon, the president whom Trump's critics often cite
when pointing to his rhetoric and missteps. The so-called Saturday Night Massacre in 1973 went
down after Nixon's insistence that the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate cover-up
be fired and ended with the top two Justice Department officials quitting. Nixon eventually
resigned in 1974 after the House Judiciary Committee reported articles of impeachment but
before the full House could vote.
(Note: White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her top two deputies were
asked to respond to the CNN report. None of the senior White House officials responded by time
of publication.)
"... Mueller is authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," according to Rosenstein's order. ..."
"... The special counsel's investigation has focused on potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, as well as obstruction of justice by the President, who might have tried to impede the investigation. CNN reported that investigators are scrutinizing Trump and his associates' financial ties to Russia. ..."
Washington (CNN) A federal grand jury in Washington on Friday approved the
first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources
briefed on the matter.
The charges are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. Plans
were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday, the sources
said. It is unclear what the charges are. A spokesman for the special counsel's office declined
to comment. The White House also had no comment, a senior administration official said Saturday
morning. Mueller was appointed in May to lead the investigation into Russian meddling in the
2016 election. Under the regulations governing special counsel investigations, Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein, who has oversight over the Russia investigation, would have been made
aware of any charges before they were taken before the grand jury for approval, according to
people familiar with the matter.
Little chance Congress can kill Mueller's funding On Friday, top lawyers who are helping to
lead the Mueller probe, including veteran prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, were seen entering the
court room at the DC federal court where the grand jury meets to hear testimony in the Russia
investigation. Reporters present saw a flurry of activity at the grand jury room, but officials
made no announcements. Shortly after President Donald Trump abruptly fired then-FBI Director
James Comey, Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel. Mueller took the reins of a
federal investigation that Comey first opened in July 2016 in the middle of the presidential
campaign. Mueller is authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise
directly from the investigation," according to Rosenstein's order.The special
counsel's investigation has focused on potential collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia, as well as obstruction of justice by the President, who might have tried to impede the
investigation. CNN reported that investigators are scrutinizing Trump and his associates'
financial ties to Russia. Mueller's
team has also examined foreign lobbying conducted by former Trump campaign chairman Paul
Manafort, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and others. His team has issued
subpoenas for documents and testimony to a handful of figures, including some people close to
Manafort, and others involved in the Trump Tower meeting between Russians and campaign
officials. Last year, the Comey-led investigation secured approval from the secret court that
oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor the communications of Manafort,
as well as former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, as part of the investigation into Russian
meddling. In addition to Mueller's probe, three committees on Capitol Hill are conducting their
own investigations.
CNN's Marshall Cohen, Mary Kay Mallonee, Laura Robinson and Ryan Nobles contributed to
this report.
"... all the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states surveillance of Hillary's opposition. First the NKVD came for GOPsters........ Stop whining about fascist threats. DNC neoliberal gestapo is working ..."
"... The dems' failed coup the demise of their partisan deep state surveillance. The US cannot afford to allow the crooked democrat party to abide. ..."
all the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states
surveillance of Hillary's opposition. First the NKVD came for GOPsters........ Stop whining about
fascist threats. DNC neoliberal gestapo is working
"... Nutbag "journalist" John Nichols is writing for The Progressive and pushing "The Case For Impeachment" by citing Congressman Brad Sherman: ""But we must move forward as quickly as possible to ensure a competent government that respects the Constitution and the rule of law . . . " ..."
"... Pardon me, but I could say the same thing about every presidential administration since Truman, but most particularly about Clinton, Bush, and Obama--the trend going ever more incompetent, unlawful and unconstitutional, with millions of innocents dead as a result. ..."
Nutbag "journalist" John Nichols is writing for The Progressive and pushing "The Case
For Impeachment" by citing Congressman Brad Sherman: ""But we must move forward as quickly as
possible to ensure a competent government that respects the Constitution and the rule of law .
. . "
Pardon me, but I could say the same thing about every presidential administration since
Truman, but most particularly about Clinton, Bush, and Obama--the trend going ever more incompetent,
unlawful and unconstitutional, with millions of innocents dead as a result.
Yes, Trump's following
that same road, although Trump's very far from "the most irresponsible and lawless President in
American history," as Nichols alleges--his three immediate predecessors though certainly rate
that condemnation.
http://progressive.org/magazine/the-case-for-impeachment/
I wish I could just laugh like crazy at the absurdity of our current dilemma, but far too many
people are dying as a result for it to be anything but humorous.
CNN
reported Friday night that Mueller has filed charges in sealed indictments. It is currently not
known what the charges are or who they have been filed against, but CNN reported that multiple people
could be facing charges.
Those affected by the indictments reportedly may be taken into custody by as early as Monday.
The news comes as a number of Republicans have been skeptical of Mueller's ability to be impartial
in the investigation. Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona
told Fox News Friday that "the federal code could not be clearer – Mueller is compromised by
his apparent conflict of interest in being close with James Comey."
The indictments could affect former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. In September, a report
from the New York Times
alleged that Mueller told Manafort that he would be indicted. However, there is no indication
Manafort is involved yet.
Hillary
Clinton 's presidential campaign was accused of breaking election rules Wednesday as she
and fellow Democrats faced fallout from the disclosure that her campaign and party operatives
paid for research used in a salacious anti- Trump dossier.
President Trump called the revelation "a
disgrace," and the head of the House investigative committee said he wants
to know whether the FBI relied on the
dossier in its counterintelligence work.
"It's very sad what they've done with this fake dossier," Mr. Trump told reporters at the
White House. "The Democrats always denied it. Hillary Clinton always denied it.
I think it's a disgrace. It's a very sad commentary on politics in this country."
The dossier, first reported on late in the presidential campaign and eventually published in
its entirety by BuzzFeed after the election, contained a series of unsubstantiated and often
salacious accusations against Mr. Trump , including supposed
contacts between his associates and Russian officials.
The 35-page document was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, who was hired by
research firm Fusion GPS.
Law firm Perkins Coie, which handled legal work for the Clinton campaign, admitted Tuesday
that it paid Fusion "to perform a variety of research services" as part of its work for
Mrs.
Clinton .
... ... ...
Operatives for Mr. Trump 's chief opponents during
the Republican primary have denied involvement in the dossier, but Mr. Trump said it was a
possibility.
"Yes, it might have started with the Republicans early on in the primaries. I think I would
know, but let's find out who it is," he told reporters. "If I were to guess, I have one name in
mind."
But given the revelations about Democrats' involvement and fresh investigations into a
uranium deal with a Russian firm approved by the Obama administration, Mr. Trump said the Russia
controversy has "turned around" on the Democrats.
"This was the Democrats coming up with an excuse for losing an election. They lost it very
badly," he said. "They didn't know what to say, so they made up the whole Russia hoax. Now it's
turning out that the whole hoax is turned around."
... ... ...
House Speaker
Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, accused the executive branch of stonewalling Congress from
obtaining documents related to the Trump dossier. He said the FBI and Justice
Department have not complied with requests from congressional members for documents related to
the dossier.
"... Michael Sussmann, a lawyer from the same firm that hired Fusion GPS on order of Democrats, hired the Crowdstrike cyber-outlet to investigate the leak of DNC emails. Crowdstrike and the DNC denied the FBI access to the relevant servers but asserted that "Russian hacking" was the source of the leak. ..."
"... The "Trump dossier" was opposition research ordered up and paid for by the Clinton/DNC mafia. Most of its content was obviously fake or patched together from publicly known facts. But it took up to now for U.S. media to point that out. The fake dossier, paid for by the Democrats, was used by the FBI under Obama to get FISA warrants to spy on Republican party operatives. ..."
"... We noted in January that the dossier was additionally used by the British and American deep state to sabotage Trump's plans for better relations with Russia (see original for source quotes): ..."
"... Steele then decided to hand the papers to the FBI and to talk to its agents hoping they would start an official investigation. He cleared his move (or was ordered to proceed?) at the highest level of the British government ..."
"... When Steele's first move with the FBI in October did note deliver the hoped for results an attempt to stove pipe them through Senator John McCain was launched. A "former" British ambassador to Moscow arranged the hand over ..."
"... The MI6 is well known for launching fakes on behalf of the British government. ..."
"... After Trump unexpectedly won the election a new effort was launched to publish the smears. The Director of National Intelligence decided (or was ordered to) "brief" the President, the President elect and Congress on the obviously dubious accusations ..."
"... After the election the Democrats stopped paying for new Steele reports. But by then efforts to make the fake Steele reports public and to thereby sabotage Trump policies turned into high gear. McCain had already been involved in distributing the report and it was he or the Brits who who paid for the last fake report Steele delivered: ..."
"... What I want to know is why the Washington Post has switched sides and is publishing something approaching the truth. Do they know a whole lot more malfeasance by the Clintons is about to be uncovered and are doing their best to protect their "journalistic" "reputation?" ..."
"... In the WaPo link, it was pretty specific. The political lobbies hire law firms to subcontract intelligence in order to maintain "confidentiality agreements". If the confidentiality agreement legitimizes defying the laws and orders of not only the legislative branch, but the collective government, it becomes clear the corporations regulate government, not the other way around. ..."
"... Yikes. I recall reading that Steele's contacts were 'Eastern Europeans', this doesn't rule out Ukrainians. Okay, maybe there really are some Russians looking for a quick buck. The point is that we are not even close to establishing ties to 'the Kremlin' but this doesn't stop MSM commentators from going there, a lot. ..."
"... When considered in conjunction with the increasing awareness of the close relationship between Western intelligence agencies and terrorism, a big part of why Russia is the bogeyman du juor in both the US and UK is revealed. The continued rapacious plunder of Western societies for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many requires an external threat to justify eternal war, police state tactics such as surveillance and militarization of police forces, the reduction of civil liberties, and expanded austerity measures in the name of "security". ..."
"... For the Dem lackeys at CNN attacking Trump with false charges was "news," their hero Obama's farewell speech was not. ..."
"... When the agency //MI6// was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior officer to plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was Steele, sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian state "hit". ..... ;) ..."
"... Reading a large part of the Podesta e-mails showed how completely terminally incompetent and out of touch the whole Dem. apparatus is. One usually likes to think that crooks and Mafia types are wily beasts who figure the angles and have several pots boiling and are good at juggling different scenarios and disculpating themselves. Your dem leader can be dumb as a brick, corrupt to the bone, a high-level sadist, all no problem - even adulation awaits. ..."
"... I recall the strenuous effort put forth to sell the "Magic Bullet" verdict of the Warren Commission, which allows me to repeat what Russia's Foreign Ministry said about the USA's trustworthiness: "They lie without shame," lying that began in earnest in 1945, escalating ever since. http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2920164 ..."
"... Why did Clapper and Brennan peddle so hard the Russians colluded with Trump meme? Why did they fear Trump so much? ..."
"... Yes, the big question why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to take down Trump? ..."
"... I think it's because Donald Trump fired them. Nothing like dropping a deuce in the room on the way out. ..."
"... IMO, the cash flow to MIC on both sides of the Atlantic. No bogeyman, no wars, no new toys and no treats. War is a money racket. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on America First; rebuild factories and infrastructure, less foreign wars, detente with Russia. These promises were taken seriously and Russiagate was unwrapped. See how quickly, after his taking the oath of office, he fell in line with the junta? Really, do you think he selected his cabinet people? ..."
"... I take it to mean Trump was a threat to the establishment, or at least a majority of the establishment that controls MSM and CIA (then again it is more likely the CIA control the establiushment and media). The threat has now passed and the Trump Putin meme is being wound back. A few scapegoats from the swamp may lose their heads but thats about it. ..."
"... The secret world has always shielded incompetence. The Wilderness of Mirrors is the only place where you can generate the myth of quality through withholding the facts of your actions. One suspects that the CIA is saturated with incompetence. Part of the reason that it hated to see it in the Brits. ..."
"... The dossier is a US fabrication, merely using the lackeys du jour . All useful analysis will flow from this. ..."
Hillary Clinton campaign cut-out hires the (former?) British intelligence agent Steele to pay
money to (former?) Russian intelligence agents and high-level Kremlin employees for dirt
about Donald Trump. They deliver some fairy tales. The resulting dossier is peddled far and
wide throughout Washington DC with the intent of damaging Trump.
There was never evidence that Steele indeed talked to any Russian, or really had contact
with his claimed sources. He has been for years persona non grata in Moscow and could not visit
the country.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a
Washington firm, to conduct the research.
..,
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence
officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Told ya so ...
Michael Sussmann, a lawyer from the same firm that hired Fusion GPS on order of Democrats,
hired the
Crowdstrike cyber-outlet to investigate the leak of DNC emails. Crowdstrike and the DNC denied
the FBI access to the relevant servers but asserted that "Russian hacking" was the source of
the leak.
The "Trump dossier" was opposition research ordered up and paid for by the Clinton/DNC
mafia. Most of its content was
obviously fake or patched together from publicly known facts. But it took up to now for
U.S. media to point that out. The fake dossier, paid for by the Democrats, was used by the FBI
under Obama to get FISA warrants to spy on Republican party operatives.
We noted in January that the dossier was
additionally used by the British and American deep state to sabotage Trump's plans for
better relations with Russia (see original for source quotes):
The "former" desk officer for Russia in the British MI6 Christopher Steele was the one who
prepared the 35
pages of obviously false claims about Russian connections with and kompromat against
Trump. There are so many inconsistencies in these pages that anyone knowledgeable about the
workings in Moscow
could immediately identify it as fake .
...
Steele spread the fakes throughout the press corps in Washington DC but no media published
them because these were obviously false accusations.
Steele then decided to hand the papers to the FBI and to talk to its agents hoping they
would start an official investigation. He cleared his move (or was ordered to proceed?) at
the highest level of the British government :
... When Steele's first move with the FBI in October did note deliver the hoped for results an
attempt to stove pipe them through Senator John McCain was launched. A "former" British
ambassador to Moscow
arranged the hand over :
... The MI6 is well
known for launching fakes on behalf of the British government.
Even the second, more official handover to the FBI still did not result in the hoped for
publication of the allegations. But by that time Clinton was widely expect to win the
election anyway so no further steps were taken.
After Trump unexpectedly won the election a new effort was launched to publish the smears.
The Director of National Intelligence decided (or was ordered to) "brief" the President, the
President elect and Congress on the obviously dubious accusations.
It was this decision that made sure that the papers would eventually be published. As the
NYT noted
:
...
Only after Clapper or others leaked to CNN about the briefing of Obama, Trump and Congress,
did CNN
publish about the 35 pages :
...
The attack was a deep state attempt to stage a
coup against Trump :
After the election the Democrats stopped paying for new Steele reports. But by then efforts
to make the fake Steele reports public and to thereby sabotage Trump policies turned into high
gear. McCain had already
been involved in distributing the report and it
was he or the Brits who who paid for the last fake report Steele delivered:
Let me remind you of the basic facts about the Dossier--It consists of 13 separate reports.
The first is dated 20 June 2016. That date is important because it shows that it took a
little more than two months [after the Democrats started paying] for Fusion GPS to generate
its first report on Trump's alleged Russian activities. If Fusion GPS already had something
in the can then I would expect them to have put something out in early May. Eleven more
reports were generated between 26 July and 19 October 2016. That tracks with the letter from
Perkins Coie that the engagement by the Clinton Campaign ended at the end of October.
But there is a big problem and unanswered question--The Dossier includes a final report
that is dated 13 December 2016. Who paid for this? Was it John McCain?
The purpose of the final fake report Steele added to the dossier was to provide "evidence"
that Trump was involved in the "Russian hacking" of the DNC:
What I want to know is why the Washington Post has switched sides and is publishing something
approaching the truth. Do they know a whole lot more malfeasance by the Clintons is about to
be uncovered and are doing their best to protect their "journalistic" "reputation?"
Wake me when someone actually goes to gaol for any of this... yawn...
The protected class has been the protected class for centuries, and shall, without drastic
beyond planetary intervention, remain the protected class for centuries more.
Seems HMSS Agent '.007' didn't quite deliver to "Q" this time... sad state of affairs that
the former once somewhat 'great' Britain has fallen so low in the IQ stakes that they would
even think such contrived rubbish would work. Hubris or desperation? What a laugh! Judging by
the MSM emissions I'd suggest we have a whole generation of policy cretins in 'da service'.
Pure Putin Envy, I suspect: gone blind with geopolitical onanism.
And, can we now assume, as this DC delicacy boils in the cauldron for a few weeks, that we
will soon see Julian Assange make his prison break? He must have enough material in encrypted
dead-man locks on the Clinton Gang et al to get a free pass from diplomatic 'jail' AND
gift his kind South American hosts some diplomatic credits to cash-in down London Town.
....and instantly the anti trump msm leak that a person close to Trump have once contacted
Wikileaks. Sigh.
The clinton paid for dossier is so implacting, or should be, because the media wont cover it
as they should, they will bury it.
The western msm is done, its so corrupt and propagandistic its amazing that not more people
take note of this.
The sad thing is just like you said you brought this up last year. This was being said
throughout last year prior to the POTUS election and had all good investigative reporting
behind it. Now that the court case comes out the msm along with all their pupp[ets are
spouting out this stuff. Everybody with a scintilla of grey matter since mid 2016 new full
well that the whole xenophobic narrative was total BS.Just like the Syrian civil war
narrative was all BS or Benghazi /Qadaffi slaughtering his people. To this day the sheeple
are in this Orwellian stupor. It is dangerous and troubling. We are living like zombies with
no critical thinking or capacity to cal out BS and lies . For heavens sake will the people
wake up and stop supporting this BS and start voting with our brains. Political system is
dead the economy is dead society is sick so we being the 99 percent by shear numbers should
be able to demand and garner change.
You ever notice how everybody can deny it all except for the few unfortunate souls who have
to go into hiding?
My thought is the intelligence community includes the US, UK and Russia, and that's just a
short list. They're all collaborating, and they are the immortal institutions we identify as
"corporations" and "think tanks" regulating government. The idea "the people" have influence
is absurd until one considers all those institutions consist of communities of people.
In the WaPo link, it was pretty specific. The political lobbies hire law firms to
subcontract intelligence in order to maintain "confidentiality agreements". If the
confidentiality agreement legitimizes defying the laws and orders of not only the legislative
branch, but the collective government, it becomes clear the corporations regulate government,
not the other way around.
The alleged Prague connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda came through an alleged meeting
between September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi consulate Ahmad Samir al-Ani in April
2001.
Has someone been watching too many "Cold War" spy movies or is the Czech counterintelligence
service's head stuck so far up Washington's arse they can't see anything. If they'd said it
was Prague, OK perhaps it would have had a bit more credibility.
Russians behind dossier: Anyone else notice that as this story is being reported that Russia (the victim) is being
blamed for the Dossier?
In its most blatant form it goes like this ... 'HRC colluded with the Kremlin against
Trump'. The way they connect the dots; HRC -> DNC -> Steele -> 'alleged Russian
contacts' = Kremlin.
Yikes. I recall reading that Steele's contacts were 'Eastern Europeans', this doesn't rule
out Ukrainians. Okay, maybe there really are some Russians looking for a quick buck. The
point is that we are not even close to establishing ties to 'the Kremlin' but this doesn't
stop MSM commentators from going there, a lot.
This government is not spending enough to meet the risks, threats, nor the opportunities
identified in its own National Defence and Security Strategy.
Politicians go where the power - the money - is. Clinton/Democrats decided to ride the
wave they did not start it. It does get very silly with
Boris Johnson as the top clown .
Anyone who threatens to challenge the status quo of the ruling establishment with a move to
the left will be discredited, and in the event they can't have their character assassinated,
their person will be assassinated instead. See Paul Wellstone, Dr. David Kelly, Pat Tillman,
John Lennon, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, JFK, RFK, etc, almost ad infinitum.
When considered in conjunction with the increasing awareness of the close relationship
between Western intelligence agencies and terrorism, a big part of why Russia is the bogeyman
du juor in both the US and UK is revealed. The continued rapacious plunder of Western
societies for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many requires an external threat
to justify eternal war, police state tactics such as surveillance and militarization of
police forces, the reduction of civil liberties, and expanded austerity measures in the name
of "security".
Both Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party and what should have been Bernie Sanders' Democratic
Party were threatening to turn back the clock on the Neoliberal/Neoconservative (see:
Zionist) strategy of consolidating both capital and power through divisive politics,
unfettered predatory capitalism, and war; all enabled by a well-orchestrated campaign of
fear, xenophobia, and state-sponsored terror.
Until we root out the Zionist menace from our governments, industries, media, and - in a
hat-tip to psychohistorian - our treasuries, we will continue to toil in an artificially
divided society wherein we work for the benefit of a self-proclaimed chosen few, all the
while being tricked into fighting their wars which are of no benefit to us and then being
given the bill for those wars.
I haven't owned a teevee in years, but I happened to be in a motel room the night that Obama
gave his farewell speech a year or so ago.
After the conclusion of the speech, FoxNews thoroughly critiqued the speech. Switching over
to CNN, Trump's "fake news" network, the speech wasn't covered at all. Instead they covered
the dossier in depth, with several "journalists" droning on and on about all the collusion
evidence.
Which just goes to prove that Trump was correct (again). For the Dem lackeys at CNN attacking
Trump with false charges was "news," their hero Obama's farewell speech was not.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 26, 2017 9:48:32 AM | 14
The link in that post requires utmost caution, and should not be opened if your mental
health can be compromised by an excessive dollop of nonsense. Finding two consecutive
sentences with a consistent thread of though is pretty hard. Look at this:
We should consider renewing attempts to expand the UN Security Council to include India,
Brazil, Germany and Japan, and to promote the idea of a rapid reaction force under its
control, however difficult this might prove to be. Our two new aircraft carriers HMS Queen
Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales along with the French carrier in production could play a
leading role in a naval version.
So, "we need" to expand UNSC and the navy. What is the connection? New council members do not
seem useful for the naval expansion (why do not postulate a Brazilian aircraft carrier?!),
and vice versa. And where those aircraft carriers are supposed to go? A new Crimean war? If
you seriously want to address threats to democracy and everything we find good and dear, we
should target Tuvalu, but for that it suffices to have a ship that has, say, 20 berths for
marine infantry, and, most importantly, resolve -- sadly lacking.
This belongs to a genre of political analysis that is boldly nonsensical. Typically, there
is a call for clarity followed by mental spaghetti. And/or a call for boldness followed by
verbiage that is offensive only in its lack of content. But what makes this article somewhat
unique is the sheer number of sentences that come without explanation and go absolutely
nowhere. Why suddenly UNSC expansion? What would improve with two new aircraft carriers owned
by European powers? The threats that have to be addressed are cyber attacks, Islamic
terrorism and Russia undermining the growth of democracy in Ukraine.
The author also mentions his childhood in Nigerian countryside together with the British
need to prevent any single power dominating over continental Europe. The latter would suggest
the need to reduce American influence, the former ????
When the agency //MI6// was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent
Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior
officer to plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was
Steele, sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian
state "hit". ..... ;)
Steele quit MI6 (wiki) in 2009 and tried to monetize his 'knowledge' and 'subservience' in
private cos., > hack to the highest bidder type.
The relations between Fusion GPS and Orbis https://orbisbi.com - see the symbolic images (Steele a
co-founder) remain murky imho but there you go, such private cos. can make money off paying
hubris-deluded clients who require! this or that.
Reading a large part of the Podesta e-mails showed how completely terminally incompetent
and out of touch the whole Dem. apparatus is. One usually likes to think that crooks and
Mafia types are wily beasts who figure the angles and have several pots boiling and are good
at juggling different scenarios and disculpating themselves. Your dem leader can be dumb as a
brick, corrupt to the bone, a high-level sadist, all no problem - even adulation
awaits.
The media have to keep running Russia stories--so much so that it seems they ultimately come
round to the point where they're biting the hand that fed them.
Twitter just banned RT and Sputnik from having ads!
Freedom of speech folks, its not worth anything these days. Twitter is nothing but a deep
state empire tool.
@27 karlof1.. but the optics look good for the continued smear of russia... man, this endless
msm story gets very boring.. all it tells me is how decrepit the western msm is at this point
groveling in the ditch 24/7...
Movie Producers are fighting to get another blockbuster "based a true story"
Who will publish the script first of " A Kink in Moscow"? the UK or the USA?
"And there's absolutely zero evidence for them to use as a basis for the bans."
Indeed, will Twitter now ban western msm on their respective reporting of Russia? No of
course not, what a friggin joke. In fact its not a joke its pretty damn scary this censorship
and masshysteria against Russia and these days clearly tells us
who spread propaganda in our soceity and who enable it (Twitter). Its nothing but a tool of
CIA/FBI now. No doubt about that.
Sick McCarthyism is alive 2017, who would have thought? Apparently the western
establishment thought that he was more than right.
To be clear on my part, my opinion is that all major turmoil, wars and financial crises
lead to the Rothchilds.
Do you do PR for Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan? I only ask 'cos Rothschilds ain't what they
used to be by a few million miles and if anyone is responsible for all major turmoil, wars
and financial crises, it's Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. Stop with the dumb conspiracy
theories, there is enough real shit in the world to be bothered about for many, many
lifetimes.
When a Big Lie is exposed, or simply goes flat like an automobile tire with multiple
pinhole-prick slow leaks, the Big Liars have a damage control strategy: Go Bigger!
This may be a semantic quibble, but to me even blithely characterizing the Steele dossier
as "opposition research" is a mendacious euphemism.
There's a well-known, and perhaps apocryphal, story that Lyndon Johnson once directed his
aides to spread the rumor that his opponent in a Texas election enjoyed physical relations
with barnyard animals. When his staffers allegedly objected that this assertion could never
be proved, Johnson supposedly replied "I know that. I just want to hear him deny
it."
By present-day standards, LBJ's ploy would be characterized as perfectly legitimate
"opposition research".
Judging from preliminary indications, the deluded or desperate anti-Trump resistance and
Democratic Party Establishment may double down and, incredibly, "own" the scurrilous smear.
Not just by dignifying the dirty trick as "normal", i.e. nominally routine, "ethical"
opposition research, but by implying that the fabrications it contains are indeed a "smoking
gun" that ought to be sufficient to fatally undermine Trump's presidency after all.
As I've been remarking more and more lately, a literary committee composed of Jonathan
Swift, Lewis Carroll, Mark Twain, Joseph Heller, Mikhail Bulgakov, and Kurt Vonnegut couldn't
create a more surrealistic and bizarre political landscape.
@Christian Chuba #12
"Eastern Europeans" -> think Ukraine, or more specifically the SBU (Ukraine CIA). The link
with McCain and the Democratic party becomes more clear then (Nuland).
to Ghostship: Have a read "Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown and "Beyond Banksters" by
Joyce Helson. The references they provide will get you started. Another excellent reference
is "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins.
When you start researching the issue of the crippling financial debts that characterize
western countries then it comes evident the primary cause is a predatory private banking
system. Private money manufactures financial crises and wars to coerce governments to impose
local and foreign policies that promote only the interests of private money and which only
has destructive and negative consequences for the 99%. You may not like it hear it and but
all money leads to the House of Rothschild and it's net worth reported to be several hundred
TRILLION!
An undeniable truth. But what do we know about those?
The so called "Democratic Party" is the equivalent of the grand old NSDAP. As with the
original, its followers are as die hard Fascists, as were the good Germans looking the other
way when the truth became obvious.
While I don't believe it will go on for centuries, the callousness and gullibility of the
American people makes them perfect Fascists.
Sieg Heil is the only greeting missing when addressing The Führer. Well, actually the
person's soaking wet dream has always been to be the first Führerin of all times.
Thatcher sucked at it, so the position is still vacant.
The question is, when will we hear the equivalent of "Sieg Heil meine Führerin"?
I recall the strenuous effort put forth to sell the "Magic Bullet" verdict of the Warren
Commission, which allows me to repeat what Russia's Foreign Ministry said about the USA's
trustworthiness: "They lie without shame," lying that began in earnest in 1945, escalating
ever since. http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2920164
Trump declares opioid epidemic a National Emergency. Guess he needs to sanction the CIA's
opium growing project in Afghanistan along with that organization's top officers. After all,
that's what he did to Venezuela for far lesser offences.
I'll try this again w/o link
--from The Saker: Re-visiting Russian counter-propaganda methods
What I propose to do today is to share with you a few recent examples of what Russian
households are regularly exposed to.
By now, you must have heard about the CNN report about how the evil Russkies used Pokemon
to destabilize and subvert the USA. If not, here it is: (video)
In Russia this report was in instant mega-success: the video was translated and
rebroadcasted on every single TV channel. Margarita Simonian, the brilliant director of
Russia Today, was asked during a live show "be truthful and confess – what is your
relationship with Pokemon, do they work for you?" to which she replied "I feed them"
– the audience burst in laughter.
The Russian Pokemon was just the latest in a long series of absolutely insane,
terminally paranoid and rabidly russophobic reports released by the western Ziomedia, all
of which were instantly translated into Russian and rebroadcasted by the Russian media.
One of the techniques regularly used on Russian talkshows is to show a short report
about the latest crazy nonsense coming out of the United States or Europe and then ask a
pro-US guests to react to it. The "liberals" (in the Russian political meaning of this
word, that is a hopelessly naïve pro-western person who loves to trash everything
Russian and who hates Putin and those who support him) are intensely embarrassed and
usually either simply admit that this is crazy nonsense or try to find some crazy nonsense
in the Russian media (and there is plenty of that too) to show that "we are just as bad".
Needless to say, no matter what escape route is chosen, the "liberal" ends up looking like
a total idiot or a traitor.
Why did Clapper and Brennan peddle so hard the Russians colluded with Trump meme? Why did
they fear Trump so much?
The FISA warrant to intercept Trump campaign officials was issued on the basis of the fake
Steele dossier smear. And then Susan Rice used her position to unmask all the participants in
those intercepts.
Yes, the big question why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and
UK try so hard to take down Trump?
as far as i've been able to tell, no one has linked to this TRNN interview w/ marcy wheeler,
a.k.a. "emptywheel" on the subject. if the transcript was close to correct, her rant was
totally illogical, even w/ aaron maté pushing back pretty hard.
'Democrats Funded the Steele Dossier that Fueled Russiagate'; After months of obfuscation,
the Washington Post reveals that the Clinton campaign and the DNC funded the infamous Steele
dossier at the heart of Russiagate. Empty Wheel's Marcy Wheeler and TRNN's Aaron Mate
discuss
while understanding that TRNN is a 'progressive' (whatever that means any more: librul?)
site in general, at least the comments below reflected how anti-roosian, anti-putin
emptywheel is. and illogical.
In reply to ab initio | Oct 26, 2017 7:46:15 PM | 51
I think it's because Donald Trump fired them. Nothing like dropping a deuce in the room on
the way out.
"...why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to
take down Trump?"
Russia too I say. It may not have been a take down so much as an (failed)attempt to become
his handlers. The "dossier" became useless once it was opened to the public. Who are Donald
Trump's handlers? Do we have a puppet, or do we have a puppeteer in Donald Trump?
IMO, the cash flow to MIC on both sides of the Atlantic. No bogeyman, no wars, no new toys
and no treats. War is a money racket.
Trump campaigned on America First; rebuild factories and infrastructure, less foreign
wars, detente with Russia. These promises were taken seriously and Russiagate was
unwrapped.
See how quickly, after his taking the oath of office, he fell in line with the junta? Really,
do you think he selected his cabinet people?
A day of reckoning abides HRC, CF, Mueller, Clapper, Brennan and cohorts. When you dig a
hole for your enemy make sure you also dig one for yourself.
In 2010, Uranium One was labelled a conspiracy theory.
Interesting times ahead.
Now WSJ, Wapo, are all over it. At least NYT wrote on the deal and money flow in April 2015 noting HRC's wish to be
president, Very detailed article but who would believe? Read up on details: timelines, the Canadian connection and the money flow..
NYT: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Have a read "Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown and "Beyond Banksters" by Joyce Helson.
The references they provide will get you started. Another excellent reference is "Secrets
of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins.
I don't need to as I previously worked for a number of financial institutions in the City
of London and I'm well aware of all the shit that banks and bankers get up to.
You may not like it hear it and but all money leads to the House of Rothschild and it's net
worth reported to be several hundred TRILLION!
Go on believing that crap if you want to but I'd be interested to know exactly what you
mean by the "House of Rothschild" other than a 1934 film. Also exactly who is reporting that
it's worth several hundred trillion although I notice you don't say what currency their
fortune is in but if it's Zimbabwean dollars that'd mean they're worth less than five dollars
bearing in mind that all Zimbabweans were almost certainly undecillionaires back in 2009.
ab initio | Oct 26, 2017 7:46:15 PM | 51 "Yes, the big question why did the top officials in
the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to take down Trump?"
I take it to mean Trump was a threat to the establishment, or at least a majority of the
establishment that controls MSM and CIA (then again it is more likely the CIA control the
establiushment and media). The threat has now passed and the Trump Putin meme is being wound
back. A few scapegoats from the swamp may lose their heads but thats about it.
Tillerson now treading the straight and narrow and fully on board for regime change
...
Since by all indications it took Romans a coupla centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire
to accept they were no longer top dog, eg the so-called 'dark ages' when the rule of roman
law disintegrated took a few hundred years to really kick off, we shouldn't be surprised that
many englanders struggle to accept their role of just being another beta in the pack. However
what interests me more is the group so well described by recently dubbed Aotearoan deputy PM
Winston Peters, as 'waka jumpers'. (a waka being the te reo name for a canoe).
Peters coined the term back in 1999 when the coalition government between the conservative
National Party and the Peters' formed New Zealand First Party, broke down and the government
lacked the numbers to guarantee supply etc. Some NZF MP's jumped ship over to the Natz
ignoring the policies under which the public gave them their electoral mandate.
Instead they took up bullshit cabinet positions which gave them increased salaries, all
sorts of travel perks for them and their families as well as the title 'Right Honourable'
etc. Needless to say there was no power attached to these new roles - nobody is gonna trust a
traitor - apart from which the Natz Party would have been deep in the doo-doo if they gave
actual power to outsiders while so many hacks 'n whores queued up dutifully in the National
Party waiting for their turn at copping a decent earner. That government limped along for
about 18 months before Helen Clark's Labour mob arseholed them.
Now the term waka jumpers shouldn't just be hung around the necks of the obvious target,
politicians - not when there are low lifes such as Rupert Murdoch, who swap nationalities
about as often as some change their underwear.
Murdoch kicked off existence as an australian then became an englander when he wanted to
dominate english TV and print media - that got him through quite a few british
parliamentary inquiries into media ownership. By the time he was ready to set up Fox and
still enjoy his print media ownership in amerika, Murdoch became an amerikan citizens. That
didn't affect his brit holdings cos once his buyouts had been approved there was no mechanism
for taking ownership back again.
The amerikan citizenship wasn't intended to be permanent, I have no doubt his marriage to
a NewsCorp executive based in Hongkong who 'just by chance' had PRC citizenship was the
beginning of a switch to a Chinese passport for old Rupe. However it rapidly became obvious
that such a move would cost fox big with its looney toons audience, so instead he set about
solving the expansion into China another way.
Murdoch got Star TV, plus China based web portals up and running without having to swap
nationality again - presumably by way of the 'three B's - bullying, blackmailing and
bribing.
That allowed him to give the Chinese missus the flick, so then he decided to do some PR
damage limitation in england & amerika by hooking up with Jaggers seconds, the Anglo
Amerikan Jerry Hall.
Many waka jumpers don't have to swap passports they follow the money eschewing any regard
for their compatriots in the process, and are the biggest obstacle to the notion of one world
that there is.
I reckon there would be nothing better than getting rid of borders and the associated
tyranny over individuals, except there are just too many arsehats out there who would twist
everything up, squirm thru loopholes and screw the rest of us over, so before that happens
more power must be devolved downwards and equality of education, opportunity etc must be much
more robustly organised. Then it makes sense, but any shift before that point and the usual
arseholes are gonna pull their usual strokes.
In this case most brits would be appalled that their establishment got so heavily involved
in another nation's electoral process, but no one asked them. Typically just as happens in
amerika, the call to take a side was made by a self-interested shadow state which has
entirely too much, too poorly defined power.
Issues of nationalism should be put to one side where that is possible, while all of us
ordinary human beings work together to flush the parasites outta their hidey holes.
@ Debsisdead who wrote:
Issues of nationalism should be put to one side where that is possible, while all of us
ordinary human beings work together to flush the parasites outta their hidey holes.
I agree! The cry for nationalism is a cry for further control by playing countries off
each other.....divide and conquer.
I would hope we can evolve to working terms for anthropological groupings of our species
that transcends nationalism but can be agreed upon as representing cultural significance and
cohesive regional identity.
Or maybe Trump will evolve the world to be a proper empire with galactic uniforms and
badges and stuff for all the MIC....to fit with the game show meme....
Interesting thread. Rich with turmoil. But very real, I think, and exploring ground that is
not that firm.
We know the Brits have been the "Step'n Fetchit" guy for the US spooks for a long time. We
gather that several decades ago, Langley used to be impressed by the English insouciance,
until the moles that tore holes in the UK fabric - Burgess, MacLean, Blunt etc. - destroyed
that old colonial myth of "effortless superiority", and revealed the worst quality of all,
incompetence.
The secret world has always shielded incompetence. The Wilderness of Mirrors is the only
place where you can generate the myth of quality through withholding the facts of your
actions. One suspects that the CIA is saturated with incompetence. Part of the reason that it
hated to see it in the Brits.
But the SAS could do things for the CIA that didn't need to get reported to the
legislatures of either country. So Britain could do a few hit jobs and earn a few points, a
few shekels. And MI6 must surely have been yearning to crawl back under the US intel umbrella
for a long, long time, until it regained trust somehow - probably from actions of unspeakable
subservience. So it's apparent that the relationship - at this point in history - between the
two spook enterprises is master and servant, US > UK.
A Le Carre fan could tell you all this, and plenty of analyses in the public sphere
could confirm it. So, in sum, there's absolutely no mystery why, or in what hierarchy of
relationship, the UK spooks would work for the US spooks.
The dossier is a US fabrication, merely using the lackeys du jour . All useful
analysis will flow from this.
Comey is actually a politician. And he definitely wanted to keep Russiagate hot, and probably was
instrumental in creating it ... As this situation suits him political desire for higher autonomy from
Justice Department
Notable quotes:
"... James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials. ..."
"... The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior. ..."
"... Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to Rosenstein. ..."
"... "The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department . ..."
"... Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence, according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official. ..."
"... "Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the Wall Street Journal wrote . ..."
"... A 2005 report from the FBI's Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated, "Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. " ..."
James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee
that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department
oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing
rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials.
The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction
from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement
with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally
decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this
direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior.
The group decided that it could override standard FBI protocol and possibly legal obligations
to report the incident because of its expectations that Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia
matter, although that recusal would not come until weeks later. The Comey cabinet also decided that
it wasn't obligated to approach the acting Deputy Attorney General because he would likely be replaced
soon.
"We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected
would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks
later.) The Deputy Attorney General's role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States
Attorney, who would also not be long in the role," Comey said. "After discussing the matter, we decided
to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation
progressed."
According to three different former federal law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity, there is no precedent for the director of the FBI to refuse to inform a Deputy Attorney
General of a matter because of his or her "acting" status nor to use the expectation of a recusal
as a basis for withholding information.
"This is an extraordinary usurpation of power. Not something you'd expect from the supposedly
by-the-books guys at the top of the FBI," one of those officials told Breitbart News.
The closest precedent to the Comey cabinet's decision to conceal information from Justice Department
superiors is likely Comey's widely criticized earlier decision to go public about the investigation
of Hillary Clinton's emails. That decision received a sharp rebuke in the May 9 memo by Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein that formed the basis for Comey's firing by Trump.
Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of
Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors
and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for
how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to
Rosenstein.
"The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein
wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta
Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and
assume command of the Justice Department . There is a well-established process for other
officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however,
the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation,
without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders."
Comey's testimony on Thursday seemed to double-down on this defense, which amounts to a claim
that the FBI's top agents can act outside of the ordinary processes intended to establish oversight
and accountability at the nation's top law enforcement agency.
The FBI's adherence to Department of Justice guidelines and instructions from Attorneys General
has been a centerpiece of its ongoing independence, often cited by officials as a reason why the
FBI does not need a general legislative charter that would restrict or control by statute its authority.
Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence,
according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official.
"He's not only put the credibility of the bureau in doubt, he's now putting the entire basis for
our independence in jeopardy," the official said.
The official pointed to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal as explaining the dangers of an
FBI that decides not to inform the Department of Justice of its activities.
"Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police
powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses
is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention
to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming
the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the
Wall Street
Journal wrote .
A 2005 report from the FBI's
Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated,
"Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines
are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General
Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or
to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. "
This is an interesting old article by guardian which suggest that Trump thought the Steele memo
was a blatant attempt to blackmail him launched against him by intelligence agencies. He proved to be
half-right. FBI was involved with Steele dossier and probably paid some money. It is unclear if
MI6 was involved but Steele would be really reckless if he did his job without consulting the agency.
This is not a regular report -- that was a direct interference into US election. The paper hint that
Steele source might be Ukrainians, not Russians.
Unverified and blighted with factual errors damaging
rumor/insinuation was picked up by media to damage Trump. This is so "color regulation style"
that it hurts.
Notable quotes:
"... Shift from measured tone to 'hysterical hostility' at press conference could destroy relationship with agencies Trump likened to Nazi Germany ..."
"... Clapper had denounced "the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated". ..."
"... Before CNN reported that aspects of the dossier, acquired by the FBI in December from the Arizona Republican senator John McCain, ..."
"... Trump had previously referred to an intelligence " as the witch-hunt " and threw the CIA's fatefully erroneous 2002 assessment that Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction back in the agency's face. ..."
Shift from measured
tone to 'hysterical hostility' at press conference could destroy relationship with agencies Trump
likened to Nazi Germany
, experts say
A shaky
detente between
Donald
Trump
and the intelligence agencies he will soon control has broken down, as Trump wrongly accused
US intelligence of leaking an unverified, salacious document to damage his nascent presidency.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Trump said that "who knows, but maybe the intelligence agencies"
were responsible for the document, which he said would be "a tremendous blot on their record".
Earlier, Trump likened the intelligence agencies to "
Nazi Germany",
in a tweet, saying they "never should have allowed this fake news to 'leak' to the public. One
last shot at me".
... ... ...
James Clapper, US director of national intelligence, said he told Trump on Wednesday evening that
the [US] intelligence community had not been responsible for the leaking of the documents.
"I emphasized that this document is not a US intelligence community product and that I do not
believe the leaks came from within the IC," Clapper said in a statement. Trump referred to the call
in a tweet first thing on Thursday morning, which said
Clapper had denounced "the false and fictitious
report that was illegally circulated".
Before CNN reported that aspects of the dossier,
acquired by the FBI in December
from the Arizona Republican senator John McCain,
were briefed
to Barack Obama and Trump, no news organization had published the accusations, which purport to reveal
compromising information Russia possesses on Trump. Trump has denied them, and
NBC later reported
that the material was prepared for the Trump briefing, but not discussed.
Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee and a consistent critic of
spycraft excesses, told the Guardian it was "profoundly dangerous" for Trump to continue his feud
with the agencies.
"The president is responsible for vital decisions about national security, including decisions
about whether to go to war, which depend on the broad collection activities and reasoned analysis
of the intelligence community. A scenario in which the president dismisses the intelligence community,
or worse, accuses it of treachery, is profoundly dangerous," Wyden said.
... ... ...
Trump's outburst was a departure from the moderated tone he had taken on the intelligence agencies
since Friday, when he met with the director of national intelligence, James Clapper; FBI director
James Comey; NSA director Mike Rogers and CIA director John Brennan to discuss their
joint conclusion
that Russia had intervened extensively in the 2016 election to benefit Trump.
Trump had previously referred to an intelligence "
as the
witch-hunt
" and threw the CIA's fatefully erroneous 2002 assessment that Iraq possessed stockpiles
of weapons of mass destruction back in the agency's face.
Clapper and Rogers had warned of plummeting
morale within the intelligence community ahead of Trump's presidency. After the meeting, Trump spoke
of his "tremendous respect for the work and service done by the men and women of this community".
At his press conference on Wednesday, Trump simultaneously accepted and diminished the intelligence
assessment that Russia was responsible for the Democratic National Committee hack, saying "I think
it was Russia" and later adding the caveat: "
You know what? It could be others also.
"...
"... While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it, the United States does have a well-documented history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies elsewhere. ..."
"... Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist Dov Levin calculates that the "two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 - an average of once in every nine competitive elections. ..."
"... In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back against some of the continent's most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats and helped ensure their electoral victory against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties in Europe. CIA operatives gave millions of dollars to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then an unprecedented, clandestine propaganda campaign : This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots, and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church. ..."
"... "We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets," recounted F. Mark Wyatt , the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2½ decades of direct support to the Christian Democrats. ..."
"... This template spread everywhere : CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring down the North Vietnamese government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal Democratic Party was backed with secret American funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations helped Christian parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash. ..."
"... In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. "A total of nearly four million dollars was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties," detailed a Senate inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove him anyway. ..."
"... And for the record, the recent parliamentary coup in Brazil has Obama's fingerprints all over it ..."
"... Thank you for this reality check. When we look at the problems in the world, we should remember that a key reason democratic institutions are so fragile in many of these countries is because of our meddling over the years. It was perceived to be in our direct national interest to undermine democratic institutions and install and support "freindly" leaders, no matter their policies towards their people. ..."
"... The blowback has and will continue. We should remember this when making "holier than thou" pronouncements about countries around the world, and acting as thou the problems of these countries in the modern era are not our responsibility. ..."
"... Thank you WAPO! I've been saying this for years: The U.S. has regularly done its worst to interfere not only with elections in foreign countries, but also with other functions in these sovereign nations. Most blatant was the Bush-Chaney attack on Iraq. ..."
"... So here's the list of US invasions of sovereign nations since 1776: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm ..."
While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it, the United States does have a well-documented
history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies elsewhere. It has
occupied and intervened militarily in a whole swath of countries in the Caribbean and Latin America
and fomented coups against
democratically elected populists .
The most infamous episodes include the ousting of Iranian
Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 - whose government was replaced by an authoritarian
monarchy favorable to Washington - the removal and assassination of Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba
in 1961, and the violent toppling of socialist Chilean President Salvador Allende, whose government
was swept aside in 1973 by a military coup led by the ruthless Gen. Augusto Pinochet.
For decades, these actions were considered imperatives of the Cold War, part of a global struggle
against the Soviet Union and its supposed leftist proxies. Its key participants included scheming
diplomats like
John Foster Dulles and Henry Kissinger, who advocated aggressive, covert policies to stanch the
supposedly expanding threat of communism. Sometimes that agenda also explicitly converged with the
interests of U.S. business: In 1954, Washington unseated Guatemala's left-wing president, Jacobo
Arbenz, who had had the temerity to challenge the vast control of the United Fruit Co., a U.S. corporation,
with agrarian laws that would be fairer to Guatemalan farmers. The CIA went on to install and back
a series of right-wing dictatorships that brutalized the impoverished nation for almost half a century.
A young Che Guevara, who happened to be traveling through Guatemala in 1954, was deeply affected
by Arbenz's overthrow. He later
wrote to his mother that the events prompted him to leave "the path of reason" and would ground
his conviction in the need for radical revolution over gradual political reform.
... ... ...
" Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought
to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist
Dov Levin calculates that the "two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946
to 2000 - an average of once in every nine competitive elections. "
In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back
against some of the continent's most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United
States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats and helped ensure their electoral victory
against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties in Europe.
CIA operatives gave millions
of dollars to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then
an unprecedented, clandestine
propaganda campaign : This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated
sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots,
and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church.
"We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political
expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets,"
recounted F. Mark Wyatt
, the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2½ decades of direct
support to the Christian Democrats.
This
template spread everywhere : CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring
down the North Vietnamese government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines
President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal Democratic Party was backed with secret American
funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations helped Christian
parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash.
In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. "A total of
nearly four million dollars was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing
slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties,"
detailed a Senate inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas
elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove
him anyway. "
Rude Trevor Vargas, 10/19/2016 11:32 AM EDT
"While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it,"
I laughed out loud when I read this. Was this printed the same day we started bombing Yemen
on behalf of one of the world's cruelest regimes, the Saudis? It's always amusing when
neoliberals clutch their pearls at the very mention of Assad's crimes against humanity, take a
breath, then give the Saudis, who are every bit as horrible, weapons by the ton.
The difference? The Saudis give us oil. Assad doesn't.
Elisi Newell, 10/18/2016 3:18 AM EDT
As the late great Chalmers Johnson aptly observed, the U.S. is a malignant society. To
further self-educate, read Johnson's Blowback Trilogy.
Brian Hanley, 10/17/2016 1:25 PM EDT
"While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it, the United States does have a
well-documented history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies
elsewhere."
Excuse me? The USA's worst behavior is right now! The USA fomented a coup in Ukraine,
backed the coup against the elected government. We are still calling it the legitimate
government of Ukraine. We brought NATO to the brink of war in Europe. And Hunter Biden, who
was right in the midst of that, our vice president's son, is now worth $4 billion. This is
gross nepotistic corruption at the top level of our government as far as much of the rest of
the world is concerned.
Behind us? This is arguably the most corrupt administration in American history.
And then there is the madness we are pursuing in Syria against that government, funding a
revolutionary army against the Syrians. What's going on in journalisim's la-la land? Is that
because all of that was mostly Hillary's architecting that nobody can mention it?
centex1, 10/17/2016 8:48 AM EDT
Why limit it to elections ? We have a long and meddlesome history of interfering in just
about everything - everywhere !!
JohninCT, 10/17/2016 6:51 AM EDT
And, so what else is new? The only thing the rumors of Russian hacking are doing is provide
cover for the chosen candidate. Plausible deniability is being set up for Hillary Clinton.
"Oh, That treasonous activity wasn't me. It must have been the Russians" Same game the
Republicans ran with Tailgunner Joe and the CIA in the '50's.
Stand there and wave some papers in the air alleging proof Hill. It's an old game honed to
its finest under John Foster and Alan Dulles and then brought to its finest public lying under
Hammering Hank Kissenger keeping us in Viet Nam waiting for Nixon's "secret plan". [Got an
extra 10 to 15,000 Americans killed. thanks Henry!] All they had to do was wave the red flag
and the lemmings ran off the cliff.
And so Ishann, what else is new. We're now stuck in a war begun during yet another a
Republican administration to pay back their friends. And, apparently, clarified for Mr. Obama
with the explanation from the military industrial complex that what is called "globalism" is
in their best interests and his continued good health in office. And, many of these folks say
their conservatives and patriots. they still lie pretty well!
And, so it goes. The Russian hacking myth gives their candidate plausible deniability. And,
we'll have a female President who probably should be in Leavenworth and would be if she had
been in the military when she conducted her hiding of misuse of classified documents.
As Freedom Flies, 10/17/2016 5:22 AM EDT
You want a one-world government and we are getting closer by the year. Is this not what
Globalism was intended to be? Everyone has an opinion?
I think we should just get used to this because this is what the founders of Globalism
wanted.
murray1, 10/17/2016 5:21 AM EDT
ever hear of Monroe Doctrine? other countries have similar goals as well.
rogerdsl, 10/16/2016 4:28 PM EDT [Edited]
The true is that the US has to apologize to so many people by the actions of so called
"patriots" like Kissinger, who were just long distance criminals and their servants in central
and South America.
No wonder it's better not to say that you are an American if you travel there.
In Chile, the US embassy was just a CIA office for the operation to kill the President
elected Salvador Allende.
And all this for what? Forty years later there is a socialist as president of Chile.
The university of Chicago was also involved in the coup by sending graduate economics
students to drive the Chilean government and inject billions of dollars into the economy.
Dumb and dumber in real life
Wildthing1, 10/16/2016 4:07 PM EDT
Changed? With all of our new technological advances? And the vulnerabilities of the internet
published to the entire planet. Add questions of involvement in a military coup against Charles
DeGaulle.
Hillary Clinton visiting Honduras just before their coup. Add having Kissinger &
Brzezinski as favored advisers. And that the cold war was hyped to create permanent war footing
for permanent MIC needing permanent wars to test out new weapons and get rid of the old in spasms
of creative destruction.
There have been many to question an anachronistic NATO by the way and it is proving in more
all the time. The question is even more relevant after invading Iraq. How can we live with ourselves and our
arrogance of power? Fulbright is a bright as ever.
Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List
By William Blum – Published February 2013
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign
government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
Lucky Barker, 10/15/2016 3:11 PM EDT
American experts officially helped Boris Yeltsin to organize massive fraud in the 1996
president elections in Russia.
There were now published payment documents!!!
Imho these was the US experts that would later become to falsify US elections in Florida
(Bush vs Gore)
Ludovici, 10/15/2016 12:03 AM EDT
"While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it..." You're kidding, right? The US
gov just took out Libya, helped in the overthrow of the democratically elected government in
Ukraine, and are right now trying to overthrow the secular Assad in Syria. Whatever the US
State Dept's true aims, they haven't changed a bit in a hundred years. Still up to the same
skullduggery that the propaganda machine accuses other nations of.
M Stirner, 10/14/2016 11:09 PM EDT
The irony.
The WaPo writes about US government fabricated sex scandals to influence foreign elections,
and totally ignores EXACTLY the same behavior by Obama/Clinton and the rest of the ruling
elite against Trump.
Robert Clark, 10/14/2016 10:24 PM EDT
you left out the last Haitian election in which the Clinton State Dept. team was
instrumental in getting the third most popular candidate elected, as per the NYT article of 15
MAR 2016...."The night of the runoff, which Mr. Martelly won, Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff,
Cheryl D. Mills, wrote a congratulatory note to top American diplomats in Haiti.
"You do great elections," Ms. Mills wrote in a message released by the State Department
among a batch of Mrs. Clinton's emails. She wrote that she would buy dinner the next time she
visited: "We can discuss how the counting is going! Just kidding. Kinda. Smile"
nestormakhno, 10/14/2016 1:47 PM EDT
So Kissinger, the thug responsible for Pinochet, has endorsed Hillary Clinton. But I'm
totally out of my mind for voting for Jill Stein for President, huh?
And for the record, the recent parliamentary coup in Brazil has Obama's fingerprints
all over it
rap n fly, 10/14/2016 11:48 AM EDT [Edited]
Thank you for this reality check. When we look at the problems in the world, we should
remember that a key reason democratic institutions are so fragile in many of these countries
is because of our meddling over the years. It was perceived to be in our direct national
interest to undermine democratic institutions and install and support "freindly" leaders, no
matter their policies towards their people.
The blowback has and will continue. We should remember this when making "holier than
thou" pronouncements about countries around the world, and acting as thou the problems of
these countries in the modern era are not our responsibility.
Doug Wenzel, 10/14/2016 11:32 AM EDT [Edited]
As Tom Lehrer said over fifty years ago:
"For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till someone we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
O we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!"
SKYDIVER, 10/14/2016 11:04 AM EDT
Thank you WAPO! I've been saying this for years: The U.S. has regularly done its worst
to interfere not only with elections in foreign countries, but also with other functions in
these sovereign nations. Most blatant was the Bush-Chaney attack on Iraq. It had zero to
do with WMD and lots to do with trying to farm out democratic governance to a country that was
not interested in or ready for democracy. Of course, Bush also wanted to take over their oil
fields - a failed effort - and to avenge perceived threats against HW Bush. What Iraq had
before Bush was simply a civil war - absolutely none of our business - and we've often
interfered with civil wars in other countries. Democracy is great, but not all nations - whose
entire populations are quite comfortable with the systems they grew up under - like or want
democracy. We are wrong to interfere in the internal affairs of such countries, and we need to
stop doing it.
zixu, 10/14/2016 8:25 AM EDT
It is a good reminder that the usg is a basic thug in the world. This whole anti russian
campaign and the sabre rattling that goes with it are part of a classic smear campaign. It has
been supported by most of the msm including the wp. this warmongering has no basis in fact. It
serves a purpose for the victoria nulands and the neocons in the usg.
steveh46, 10/14/2016 10:31 AM EDT
Ummm. Just because the usg has been thuggish doesn't mean the current Russian gov't isn't
thuggish.
JMater, 10/14/2016 8:24 AM EDT
US under the neocons and AIPAC went to war in Iraq based on lies, killing 5,000 US soldiers
and over 500,000 Iraqi civilians.
We also had the Johnson Vietnam war after the Kennedy assassination of Diem. In Vietnam we
had over 58,000 American deaths and over 1.3 million non-American deaths. Proportion.
JMater, 10/14/2016 8:22 AM EDT
Israel has been trying to influence our government for decades using its proxies at AIPAC
and other spy agencies. It is time to expose these traitors and prosecute them.
Ma123456, 10/14/2016 8:16 AM EDT
And don't forget the most recent example: Obama said he wouldn't meet with Netanyahu
because he didn't want to influence the upcoming Israeli election, yet US operatives were on
the ground in Israel doing just that (led by "the architect of the grass-roots and online
organizing efforts behind both of Obama's presidential campaigns")
www.newsmax.com/JohnFund/israel-netanyahu-election-hillary/2015/03/18/id/630817/#ixzz4N3pX2Qyo
This is so interesting, because wikileaks has just come out and said........... that the
Clinton political camp knew all about the emails links, months before they came out to the
public. According to Wikileaks the Clinton camp decided to use this theft on who ever was
Hillary's political rival . Poor Trump he never saw it coming.
Please also : that Hillary was originally going to run against J. Bush. It was set in stone
by the special interest groups that own America. Since both political parties knew about this
theft ( This group also owns both political parties) it was really no big deal. IF this theft
information had to be used.....it would be fruitless. Hillary was going to have a easy breezy
run and, then become president. Bush would then go back to his wealthy lifestyle and life
would go on. They did not expect Trump to get as far as he did this election. So the big theft
would have to be blamed on him.
According to Hillary.......Donald Trump is UNFIT to become president:
Because he has NO EXPERIENCE making people pay for access to government officials!
Because He has NO BACKROUND in leaking intelligence that gets our people killed abroad!
Because he couldn't wipe a server with both hands!
"... ...Trump has suggested he may reduce the bloated CIA and 16 other US intelligence agencies that spend over $70 billion annually ..."
"... The vast military industrial complex is after Trump, fearing he may cut the $1 trillion annual military budget and efforts to dominate the globe. Members of Congress under orders from the pro-war neocons are trying to undermine Trump. ..."
"... They are all using Russia as a tool to beat Trump. The hysteria and hypocrisy over alleged Russian hacking is unbelievable and infantile. Sen. John McCain actually called it a grave threat to American democracy, thus joining the Soviet old fools club. Of course Russia's spooks probe US electronic communications. That's their job, not playing chess. The US hacks into everyone's communications, including leaders of allied states. It's called electronic intelligence (ELINT). ..."
"... It's not Russian TV (for whom I occasionally comment) that is undermining America's democracy, it's the nation's neocon-dominated media pumping out untruths and disinformation. Ironically, Russian TV has become one of the few dissenting voices in North America's media landscape. Sure it puts out government propaganda. So does CNN, MSNBC and Fox. At least RT offers a fresher version. ..."
"... "Trump is now under attack by religious fundamentalists in Congress for his sensible attitude to Russia " I see no evidence that Evangelicals are doing this en bloc. Over 80% of Evangelicals voted for Trump and I've never heard any I've met say a bad word about Putin and his religious policies. ..."
"... Not a flattering comparison. Gorby is a fool who destroyed the country ..."
"... Meanwhile, Caucasus was already burning. Now, in the hindsight, look how much "happiness" Gorbachev's incompetent "reforms" brought Russian people. ..."
"... No wonder this marked (on his head) imbecile spends more time in London or elsewhere than in Russia ..."
"... There is another "Western" cliche' that Gorbachev (and later Yeltsin) "reforms" were "peaceful" -- nothing could be further from the truth, including ethnic cleansing of Russians (and others) from very many places, which today, in view of lack of those cleansed Russians, can barely, if at all, run their own infrastructure, let alone built a serious new one. ..."
...Trump has suggested he may reduce the bloated CIA and 16 other US intelligence agencies that
spend over $70 billion annually, not including 'black' programs, on who knows what? Tapping
communications and assassinating assorted Muslims from the air no doubt.
Trump has called for an 'even-handed' approach to the question of Palestine, enraging neocons
who fear Israel's headlock on Congress and the White House may be loosened. The neocon press, like
the Wall Street Journal, NY Times and Washington Post, have been baying for Trump's blood. Not since
World War II has the media so dramatically dropped its mask of faux impartiality to reveal it true
political agenda.
Adding to his list of foes, Trump is now under attack by religious fundamentalists in Congress
for his sensible attitude to Russia. The vast military industrial complex is after Trump, fearing
he may cut the $1 trillion annual military budget and efforts to dominate the globe. Members of Congress
under orders from the pro-war neocons are trying to undermine Trump.
They are all using Russia as a tool to beat Trump. The hysteria and hypocrisy over alleged
Russian hacking is unbelievable and infantile. Sen. John McCain actually called it a grave threat
to American democracy, thus joining the Soviet old fools club. Of course Russia's spooks probe US
electronic communications. That's their job, not playing chess. The US hacks into everyone's communications,
including leaders of allied states. It's called electronic intelligence (ELINT).
But don't blame the wicked Moscovites for revealing how Hillary Clinton's Democratic National
Committee rigged the primaries in her favor against Sen. Bernie Sanders. That cat was well out of
the bag already.
It's not Russian TV (for whom I occasionally comment) that is undermining America's democracy,
it's the nation's neocon-dominated media pumping out untruths and disinformation. Ironically, Russian
TV has become one of the few dissenting voices in North America's media landscape. Sure it puts out
government propaganda. So does CNN, MSNBC and Fox. At least RT offers a fresher version.
Watching our intelligence chiefs and Sen. McCain trying to blacken Trump's name by means of a
sleazy, unverified report about golden showers in a Moscow hotel, is particularly ignoble.
It's also a laugh. Every one who went to Moscow during the Cold War knew about the bugged hotel
rooms, and KGB temptresses (known as 'swallows' -after the birds) who would knock on your door at
night and give you the old Lenin love mambo while hidden camera whirled away. I asked for 8×10 glossies
to be sent to my friends. But sadly for me, the swallows never came though I did meet some lovely
long-legged creatures at the Bolshoi Ballet. So-called honey traps were part of the fun of the cold
war.
Humor aside, it's dismaying to hear senior US intelligence officials who faked 'evidence' that
led to the invasion of Iraq and used torture and assassination attacking Donald Trump. Of course
their jobs are at risk. They should be. The CIA, in particular, has evolved from a pure intelligence
gathering agency into a state-sanctioned Murder Inc that liquidates real and imagined enemies abroad.
The KGB used to do the same thing – but more efficiently.
Our intelligence agencies are a vital component of national security – which has become our new
state religion. But in true bureaucratic form (see Parkinson's Laws) they have become bloated, redundant
and self-perpetuating. They need a tough Trump diet and to be booted out of politics. This past week's
display of the deep state's grab for power – a sort of re-run of one of my favorite films, 'Seven
Days in May' – should remind all thinking Americans that the monster police state apparatus created
by President George W. Bush is the greatest threat to our Republic.
(Reprinted from
EricMargolis.com
by permission of author or representative)
"Trump is now under attack by religious fundamentalists in Congress for his sensible attitude
to Russia "
I see no evidence that Evangelicals are doing this en bloc. Over 80% of Evangelicals voted for
Trump and I've never heard any I've met say a bad word about Putin and his religious policies.
If there are some like Cruz who are doing this, they are not representative of Evangelicals and
their motives do not spring from support of Evangelicalism.
Not a flattering comparison. Gorby is a fool who destroyed the country (and btw, what "brutal
policies"?), creating chaos, disaster. When what needed was reforms, gradual careful reforms.
Look at China; that's what the USSR should've done in the 1980s.
Not even close, actually. Totally different impetuses. This set of cliches below:
These policies enraged Moscow's security agencies, its hardline Communist elite ('nomenklatura')
and vast military industrial complex. Gorby's proposed budget cuts would have put many of them
out of business. So they decided to overthrow Mikhail Gorbachev to save their own skins. The coup
utterly failed and its drunken, bungling leaders jailed.
Betrays lack of understanding of what was going on in USSR since 1988, including the vast majority
of Soviet population voting for preservation of USSR later, on referendum. Even Gorbachev himself
admitted in 1988 or 1989 in one of his interviews on Soviet TV that he knows that he is being portrayed
as wearing a food coupons, instead of medals, on his suit.
Meanwhile, Caucasus was already burning.
Now, in the hindsight, look how much "happiness" Gorbachev's incompetent "reforms" brought Russian
people.
No wonder this marked (on his head) imbecile spends more time in London or elsewhere than
in Russia.
There is another "Western" cliche' that Gorbachev (and later Yeltsin) "reforms" were "peaceful"
-- nothing
could be further from the truth, including ethnic cleansing of Russians (and others) from very many
places, which today, in view of lack of those cleansed Russians, can barely, if at all, run their
own infrastructure, let alone built a serious new one.
There is no denial the fact that Soviet Party nomenclature degenerated but the so called "coup"
was not really a coup. It is a very long conversation but most of today's oligarchs as well as ideologues,
such as swine-looking late Gaidar, are from party, komsomol and security apparatus. Make your own
conclusions.
"... After it was revealed that Rob Goldstone - the man who arranged the now infamous Trump Jr. " setup " with a shady Russian attorney, is associated with Fusion GPS - the firm behind the largely discredited 35 page Trump-Russia dossier, the co-founder of Fusion GPS abruptly canceled his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week to testify in the ongoing probe into Russian influence in the 2016 election, according to Politico . ..."
Co-Founder Of Trump-Russia Dossier Firm Cancels Testimony While
Lynch Claims Ignorance
The ongoing efforts to bring down Donald Trump are unraveling at an accelerating pace...
Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS Co-Founder
After it was revealed that
Rob
Goldstone
- the man who arranged the now infamous Trump Jr. "
setup
" with a shady Russian attorney, is associated with Fusion GPS - the firm behind the
largely discredited 35 page Trump-Russia dossier, the co-founder of Fusion GPS abruptly
canceled his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week to testify in the
ongoing probe into Russian influence in the 2016 election, according to
Politico
.
The committee announced Wednesday that Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS was scheduled to
voluntarily appear on July 19.
During the 2016 US election, Simpson's firm hired former British spy Christopher Steele to
produce the 35 page dossier, accusing then-candidate Donald Trump of all sorts of salacious
dealings with Russians. When Steele couldn't verify it's claims, the FBI
refused to pay him $50,000
for the report - which didn't stop John McCain from
hand-delivering it
to former FBI director James Comey, or the Obama Administration from
using it to start spying on Trump associate
Carter
Page
.
That's two attempts to take down President Trump involving Fusion GPS.
A spokesman for the President's legal team told The Independent they now believed Ms
Veselnitskaya and her colleagues had misrepresented who they were and who they worked for.
"Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with
Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to
develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier ."
-Mark Corallo
Perhaps sensing he's totally screwed and now a huge liability to the deep state, Simpson
canceled his testimony next week.
Loretta Lynch Knows Nothing
After it
The Hill
at a press conference during his visit to France, stating "She [Veselnitskaya] was
here because of Lynch, following up with "Nothing happened from the meeting... Zero happened
from the meeting, and honestly I think the press made a big deal over something that many
people would do."
Lynch distanced herself in a Thursday statement, with a spokesperson claiming that the
former Attorney General "does not have any personal knowledge of Ms. Veselnitskaya's
travel."
The spokesperson did not go into detail about Veselnitskaya's case, but followed up by
saying "The State Department issues visas, and the Department of Homeland Security oversees
entry to the United States at airports."
After Lynch's DOJ allowed Veselnitskaya into the country to participate in a lawsuit and
nothing more , she had the now infamous meeting at Trump tower, met with current and former
lawmakers from both parties, and was spotted in primo front-row seating at a House Foreign
Affairs committee hearing on Russia.
The Moscow lawyer had been turned down for a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully but then was
granted special immigration parole by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the limited
purpose of helping a company owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, her client, defend
itself against a Justice Department asset forfeiture case in federal court in New York
City.
During a court hearing in early January 2016, as Veselnitskaya's permission to stay in the
country was about to expire, federal prosecutors described how rare the grant of parole
immigration was as Veselnitskaya pleaded for more time to remain in the United States.
"In October the government bypassed ?the normal visa process and gave a type of
extraordinary ?permission to enter the country called immigration parole," Assistant U.S.
Attorney Paul Monteleoni explained to the judge during a hearing on Jan. 6, 2016.
".. Lynch distanced herself in a Thursday statement, with a spokesperson claiming that the
former Attorney General "does not have any personal knowledge of Ms. Veselnitskaya's
travel."...
I suspect Loretta got some coachin' from Slippery Bill on the tarmac, how to say something
that only a fool would believe means anything.
" I do not have any personal knowledge of Ms Veselnitskaya's .... breakfast plans" what
does that mean?
The drunk on DNC propaganda religious MSNBC ultra left watchers are going to get very
agitated screaming "show trials" when their heroes start doing the orange jumpsuit frog
march. That is when it will get ugly in the streets and on the DC mall. Cheer up comrades, it
is going to get a lot worse.
This whole shit storm will be over soon, because if they peel back the final layer to this
story, they will find that the entire apparatus of Washington, DC is on the take.
and Veselnitskaya is linked to the Bill Browder/Edmund Safra Hermitage Capital Hedge Fund
through her work for people affected by Magnitsky Act........this swamp is certainly deep but
it is hard to know who is a swamp monster and who is being dragged in
How is $ 6 million "pennies on the dollar"? If the U.S. was at one time seeking $ 12
million, is a settlement for half that amount unusual as pre-trial settlements go?
Also how she now insists that it's State and DHS that handle this stuff, while in filed
court briefs in January, DOJ was all breathless about what an extraordinary, rare exemption
Ms. V received, direct from the AG.
Someone is lying. But then, lawyers are involved so I guess it's inevitable.
"... When I first read the memos, I knew none of the backstory, and looked forward to the salacious content to bring this clown down, particularly any facts showing that the Trump people had prior knowledge of the Russian hacks - a Watergate-sized story, if true, even if the effects of the hacks on the election are being overblown. But with nearly 40 years of investigative experience, mostly on international issues, the wording of the memos quickly caused me to slam on the breaks, because they were worded in such a way as to make confirmation of the charges impossible. The rule involved in making professional judgments on these kinds of things is simple: you look for information that can be proven either true or false, and from that factual template, you then build out one incontrovertible fact at a time. These memoranda had no such facts, with the possible exception of Cohen's trip to Prague, which the FBI told the WSJ was false. ..."
... think it was wrong for BuzzFeed to publish it and the media company
bears responsibility for this debacle, which has made the entire profession look even worse and generated
sympathy for, of all people, Donald Trump.
Simpson's firm is being berated at the moment but there are a lot
of companies in Washington who do the same thing - namely produce political and business intelligence
for paying clients - and they operate openly and everyone, including journalists, know who they are.
In terms of political intelligence, there are firms who work for Democrats and firms that work for
Republicans, and some who work for both. The Democrats don't have a monopoly on these firms as one
might imagine from the current hysteria.
... ... ...
As has been widely reported, the Trump dossier had circulated for
many months - at least as far back as August - and even though there was a fever on the part of the
media to get anti-Trump stories into print, everyone with the exception of David Corn of Mother
Jones declined to write about the "dossier," and even he only referred to parts of it. The fact
that dozens of journalists reviewed these documents and declined to use them, on the grounds that
their allegations could not be verified shows that the information contained within them was very
shaky.
I read the documents online and it's clear that they are thinly sourced and there
were apparently serious errors in them, for example the bit about Trump's attorney's trip to
Prague...
... ... ...
Whatever you think of Trump, he won this embarrassing election under
the rules of the game. (And yes, Hillary won the popular vote and in a serious democracy she would
have been declared the winner, but we are stuck for the time being with the Electoral College.) The
Golden Showers story is quite a sensational accusation to make given that he was about 10 days out
from inauguration. If Hillary had won the election would Buzzfeed have posted an unproven dossier
on her that alleged she had hired prostitutes during an overseas trip to Ukraine? I seriously doubt
it, especially given Buzzfeed's notable pro-Hillary tilt during the campaign.
... ... ...
When Chuck Todd accused Smith of publishing "fake news," he suggested
that BuzzFeed was just being a good Internet news organization and not letting the media and political
elite keep information from the public. This would be easier to take more seriously if BuzzFeed is
not so obviously a part of the media elite and doesn't fraternize so comfortably with the political
elite like most other news outlets. BuzzFeed was chasing clicks and that's fine, but dressing this
up as public service doesn't cut it and especially given the political calculations involved.
BuzzFeed's other excuse was that the documents were already being
talked about and were referred to in the Intelligence Community's very dubious report on Trump. But
the documents appear to have been given to various agencies by political figures seeking to burn
Trump, which BuzzFeed was only too happy to help out with. So it appears that Trump's political enemies
and media enemies were working together to get this information out before the inauguration.
I'd also note here one peculiar, and possibly unethical, thing about
the New York Times' behavior here. The Times, like everyone but BuzzFeed, didn't
publish the report but they wrote quite a bit about it. In an early story it said that they would
not identify the research firm behind the leaked memos because of "a confidential source agreement
with The New York Times." Then it revealed the firm's name in a later story and edited the earlier
one to take out the line about their confidential source agreement.
So it looks like the Times violated a confidentiality agreement, which
is pretty troubling...
... ... ...
Note: I'd strongly urge anyone following this story to friend long-time investigative
journalist and researcher Craig Pyes on Facebook. ....
Here is an excerpt:
When I first read the memos, I knew none of the backstory, and looked forward
to the salacious content to bring this clown down, particularly any facts showing that the Trump
people had prior knowledge of the Russian hacks - a Watergate-sized story, if true, even if the
effects of the hacks on the election are being overblown. But with nearly 40 years of investigative
experience, mostly on international issues, the wording of the memos quickly caused me to slam
on the breaks, because they were worded in such a way as to make confirmation of the charges impossible.
The rule involved in making professional judgments on these kinds of things is simple: you look
for information that can be proven either true or false, and from that factual template, you then
build out one incontrovertible fact at a time. These memoranda had no such facts, with the possible
exception of Cohen's trip to Prague, which the FBI told the WSJ was false.
"... Warning that a "soft coup" is being waged against Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he sees attempts in the United States to "delegitimize" US President-elect Donald Trump using "Maidan-style" methods previously used in Ukraine, where readers will recall president Yanukovich was ousted in 2014 following a violent coup, which many suspect was conducted under the auspices of the US State Department and assorted US intelligence operations. ..."
"... Putin said he doesn't believe that Donald Trump met with prostitutes in Russia, calling the accusations part of a campaign to undermine the election result, and suggested that an internal political struggle is underway in the United States despite the fact that the presidential election is over, and added that reports of alleged Russian dossier on Trump are fake as "our security services do not chase every US billionaire." ..."
Warning that a "soft coup" is being waged against Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin
said that he sees attempts in the United States to "delegitimize" US President-elect Donald Trump
using "Maidan-style" methods previously used in Ukraine, where readers will recall president Yanukovich
was ousted in 2014 following a violent coup, which many suspect was conducted under the auspices
of the US State Department and assorted US intelligence operations.
Putin said he doesn't believe that Donald Trump met with prostitutes in Russia, calling the
accusations part of a campaign to undermine the election result, and
suggested that an internal political struggle is underway in the United States despite the fact
that the presidential election is over, and added that reports of alleged Russian dossier on Trump
are fake as "our security services do not chase every US billionaire."
Unsubstantiated allegations made against Trump are "obvious fabrications," Putin told reporters
in the Kremlin on Tuesday. "People who order fakes of the type now circulating against the U.S. president-elect,
who concoct them and use them in a political battle, are worse than prostitutes because they don't
have any moral boundaries at all," he said.
The Russian president,
cited by BBG, said that Trump wasn't a politician when he visited Moscow in the past and Russian
officials weren't aware that he held any political ambitions.
"... As Lambert has remarked, this is not the behavior of a confident elite. ..."
"... Trump has responded that Steele is a "failed spy". That is not an impetuous tweet. It's the assessment of both US and British intelligence agencies, including MI6, for which Steele worked undercover in Moscow between 1994 and 1996. His cover was blown; he was evacuated; and as British intelligence sources report this week, Steele has been unable to enter Russia for a decade. "No Russian with official links and knowledge would risk communicating with Steele for fear of being detected by Russian counter-intelligence," said an intelligence source in London, Said another: "I met [Steele] a couple of times and thought that for a relatively undistinguished man who never made very senior rank he was a smug, arrogant s.o.b. So I don't work with him. The description of his being the top expert on Russia in MI6 is bollocks. " ..."
"... The Steele dossier contains 35 pages, commencing on June 20, 2016, and ending on December 13, 2016. The published form can be read here . It comprises 17 reports. But the file numbering from 2016/ 080 to 2016/166 implies there were 86 such reports altogether, so only one in five has become public. What was in the remaining 67 reports is unknown. Unknown, too, is whether it's possible that over six months Steele was producing reports on Russia at the rate of 11 per month, 3 per week, one every two days. ..."
"... A London newspaper claims Steele was paid £200,000 for his job. The newspaper also claims that a friend of Steele "who does not want to be named, says he sold them in instalments at $15,000 (£12,300) a time every three weeks to anti-Trump Republicans looking for dirt on the tycoon in the run-up to the presidential nomination." This means there were no other reports in the series; the numbering was intended to mislead. That's not all. ..."
"... Steele's career in Russian intelligence at MI6 had hit the rocks in 2006, and never recovered. That was the year in which the Russian Security Service (FSB) publicly exposed an MI6 operation in Moscow. Russian informants recruited by the British were passed messages and money, and dropped their information in containers fabricated to look like fake rocks in a public park. Steele was on the MI6 desk in London when the operation was blown. Although the FSB announcement was denied in London at the time, the British prime ministry confirmed its veracity in 2012. Read more on Steele's fake rock operation here , and the attempt by the Financial Times to cover it up by blaming Putin for fabricating the story. ..."
As Lambert has remarked, this is not the behavior of a confident elite.
By John Helmer , the
longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist
to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been
a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States,
and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to
establish himself in Russia. Originally published at
Dances with Bears
Almost everyone goes to bed at night. Some get up to urinate. The older, less continent ones
can't get up easily, so they urinate on themselves. If properly cared for, they do so in what
is known in the geriatric product market as roll-ups.
A small minority arrange to be urinated upon by others, though not usually on the bed they
aim to sleep in. This may be an erotic pleasure for you, a perversion to the next man. The name
for it is Golden Showers. If conducted between consenting adults, it's not a crime. Paying for
it may be a crime, depending on the local law on procuring. In the Russian criminal code it's
not a felony but a misdemeanour with a fine so small it usually isn't enforced by the police;
certainly not in expensive big-city hotels.
A claim is being widely reported in the US media which supported Hillary Clinton for president
that President-elect Donald Trump paid for at least two ladies to urinate on the bed in the presidential
suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel of Moscow. A former British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6)
agent named Christopher Steele has reported the episode in a memorandum dated June 20, 2016, because
he was paid by a US client to do it; and also because he was paid to speculate that the Russian
Security Service (FSB) filmed it, and has been blackmailing Trump ever since.
Trump has responded that Steele is a "failed spy". That is not an impetuous tweet. It's the
assessment of both US and British intelligence agencies, including MI6, for which Steele worked
undercover in Moscow between 1994 and 1996. His cover was blown; he was evacuated; and as British
intelligence sources report this week, Steele has been unable to enter Russia for a decade. "No
Russian with official links and knowledge would risk communicating with Steele for fear of being
detected by Russian counter-intelligence," said an intelligence source in London, Said another:
"I met [Steele] a couple of times and thought that for a relatively undistinguished man who never
made very senior rank he was a smug, arrogant s.o.b. So I don't work with him. The description
of his being the top expert on Russia in MI6 is bollocks. "
The story of the Obama-Trump bed, according to Steele, comes from 2013. Another story, the
one of the Putin bed on which Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had sex with a prostitute
in Rome, dates from 2009. The true part has been verified with a tape the lady made of Berlusconi
boasting about the source of the bed as he exercised himself on it. Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for
Putin then and now, says the Trump-Obama bed story is "a complete fake. It's total nonsense."
But about the Putin-Berlusconi bed, he said at the time: "We reject this information. I am not
in a position to explain." In short, that bedtime story may be
true .
The Steele dossier contains 35 pages, commencing on June 20, 2016, and ending on December 13,
2016. The published form can be read
here . It comprises 17 reports. But the file numbering from 2016/ 080 to 2016/166 implies
there were 86 such reports altogether, so only one in five has become public. What was in the
remaining 67 reports is unknown. Unknown, too, is whether it's possible that over six months Steele
was producing reports on Russia at the rate of 11 per month, 3 per week, one every two days.
A London newspaper
claims Steele was paid £200,000 for his job. The newspaper also claims that a friend of Steele
"who does not want to be named, says he sold them in instalments at $15,000 (£12,300) a time every
three weeks to anti-Trump Republicans looking for dirt on the tycoon in the run-up to the presidential
nomination." This means there were no other reports in the series; the numbering was intended
to mislead. That's not all.
The Guardian newspaper, the Financial Times and US newspapers claim the dossier has been circulating
"for months and acquired a kind of legendary status among journalists, lawmakers, and intelligence
officials who have seen them",
according to one reporter.
According
to Financial Times reporter Courtney Weaver, she "investigated some of the allegations contained
in the report but was unable to confirm them." She has published them, nonetheless. For more on
Weaver's record for veracity in Moscow, read
this .
A source at a London due diligence firm which is larger and better known than Steele's
Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd. says "standard
due diligence means getting to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There
are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means the client wants you to dig up dirt
on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client wants
you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace;
it's also leaked to the press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire
a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop
him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious."
Steele's career in Russian intelligence at MI6 had hit the rocks in 2006, and never recovered.
That was the year in which the Russian Security Service (FSB) publicly exposed an MI6 operation
in Moscow. Russian informants recruited by the British were passed messages and money, and dropped
their information in containers fabricated to look like fake rocks in a public park. Steele was
on the MI6 desk in London when the operation was blown. Although the FSB announcement was denied
in London at the time, the British prime ministry confirmed its veracity in 2012. Read more on
Steele's fake rock operation here
, and the attempt by the Financial Times to cover it up by blaming Putin for fabricating the story.
The wet bed story, as Steele reported it to his client who then leaked it to the media, looks
like this:
The June 20, 2016, memo, which started the wet bed story, reports seven sources, identified
as Source A through G. No other report in the dossier has as many sources; some of the original
seven reappear in the series. Look carefully to detect what the Clinton media have missed.
Source D isn't Russian at all. He is American; Steele reports him as a "close associate of
Trump who organized and managed his trips to Moscow". D claims to have been "present"; there is
a bedside armchair in the Ritz Carlton photograph, so "present" is possible.
Source E's identity has been blacked out in the first memo, but he is identified elsewhere
in the series as another American – a "Russian émigré figure close to Trump's campaign team" –
not to Trump himself. Within the space of a paragraph, however, he turns into an "émigré associate
of Trump". Several memos and weeks later, on August 10, this source has become "the ethnic Russian
associate of Trump".
The others reported by Steele to have been in on the wet bed story include Source F, "a female
staffer at the hotel when Trump stayed there". From the dossier it appears she told her story
to an American who was an "ethnic Russian operative" of the company run by Source E, the émigré.
So Source F isn't a direct or independent source at all. If this is beginning to bewilder you,
it should. The only sources for the wet bed story turn out to be Americans, not Russians at all.
Just how difficult it was for Steele to pinpoint Trump's sexual activities in Russia, as well
as his business, is indicated by the September 14 memo in the file. This claims to report Trump's
visits to St. Petersburg. No dates have been given. One source, termed as a Russian from the "local
services and tourist industry", reportedly told "a trusted Russian compatriot", three years after
the event, that Trump had "participated in sex parties in the city". How many people make a sex
party isn't reported; two may have sufficed. The memo reports no trace because "all direct witnesses
had recently been 'silenced', i.e., bribed or coerced to disappear".
Trump posed for this photograph during the Miss Universe pageant, one of his business
affairs in Moscow in November 2013. Source:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-russia-moscow-miss-universe-223173 In a
European newspaper
published on January 15, Trump confirmed this was the occasion for the wet bed story. Trump
said: "I just got a letter from people that went to Russia with me - did you see that letter -
very rich people, they went with me, they said you were with us, I was with them, I wasn't even
here when they said such false stuff. I left, I wasn't even there . . . I was there for the Miss
Universe contest, got up, got my stuff and I left - I wasn't even there - it's all." .
The same report by Steele admits it was "hard to prove" what business, if any, Trump had done
in St. Petersburg. The allegation that, in order to make no reportable real estate transactions,
Trump had "paid bribes to further his interests through affiliated companies", is presented in
the dossier as evidence of Trump's corruption. Steele was taking £12,000 to portray the businessman
as someone so inexperienced as to pay bribes before he had a deal, not during or after completion.
Steele's only Russian sources have no reported knowledge of Trump's sexual conduct. They include
two people reported as serving government officials – Source A, a "senior Foreign Ministry figure";
and Source G, a "senior Kremlin official". One is a retiree – a "former top level Russian intelligence
officer still active inside the Kremlin"; and one is "an official close to the Presidential Administration
head [Sergei] Ivanov". That makes four who British intelligence sources are certain had no contact
at all with Steele, his company, or foreigners. A source with direct knowledge of operations says:
"Basic rule [of MI6] is that you are probably identified after a couple of jobs. Then in any other
visit you might infect anyone you associate with." Second rule, according to this source, is that
by the time his cover was blown in 1996 Steele had "infected everyone he had been associated with
in Moscow." Since then all he has been able to collect is hearsay three or four times removed
from its origin.
Among Steele's kibitzers, he names a businessman, a "senior Russian financial officer"; "two
well-placed and established Kremlin sources", a "Kremlin insider", a "well-placed Russian figure",
and a "close associate of Rosneft President and Putin ally Igor Sechin". The duo claims that Peskov,
the presidential spokesman, had "botched" his role in the military coup in Turkey on July 15,
2016, and was in trouble with chief of staff Ivanov, the Russian intelligence agencies and Putin.
Steele's sources provided "no further details" so they didn't know what Peskov had done.
Steele failed to check the record. Had he done so, he would have discovered that Peskov made
a public denial of Middle East press reports claiming Russian military intelligence had warned
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of the plot against him, enabling him to survive. ""I don't
have such information and I don't know the sources, to which the news agency Fars is referring,"
Peskov declared . This was either
a less than convincing denial of the truth, or an incredulous falsehood. Either way, no Russian
source, civilian or military, has suggested Peskov had done anything remarkable. "If Peskov botched
that one," said a source in a position to know, "he does the same all the time. What's news about
that?"
The "Kremlin insider" – not an official, not a retiree, possibly a journalist – is presented
by Steele in a memo of October 19, 2016, as his only source for reporting that Trump's lawyer,
Michael Cohen, had met secretly with Kremlin officials "in the attempt to prevent the full details
of Trump's relationship with Russia being exposed." The "insider" had revealed what he knew "speaking
in confidence to a longstanding compatriot friend". However, between the two of them they didn't
know which Kremlin officials Cohen had met; where; when; or what had been discussed. The "insider"
did confide that Ivanov's replacement as chief of the presidential staff by his deputy, Anton
Vaino, on August 12, 2016, and Sergei Kirienko's transfer from the state nuclear power holding
Rosatom to deputy chief of the staff at the Kremlin on October 5 were both connected to the same
thing – the "need to cover up Kremlin's Trump support operation".
Ivanov, extreme left, has remained an active member of the National Security Council, as
this council session of January 13
shows . Russian
gossip and speculation on the reasons for Ivanov's exit from the chief of staff post were voluminous
at the time, including as many personal as policy and political reasons. Steele selected the story
his client asked for with a blind attribution in a crowd; added the adjective "Kremlin"; and submitted
a fresh invoice for £12,000.
The source "close" to Sechin was reported as saying that during a visit to Moscow in July 2016,
Carter Page, a sometime advisor to Trump, had met Sechin, and been told that Sechin "continued
to believe that Trump could win the US presidency". Sechin reportedly also told Page that if Trump
lifted US sanctions on Rosneft, he would offer "Page/Trump's associates the brokerage [sic] of
up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft in return." This was reported on October 18.
On December 12 Carter, back in Moscow, told Russian reporters he had revisited Rosneft: "I had
the opportunity to meet with some of the top managers of the company Rosneft. The recent Rosneft
deal, in which the Qatar Fund and Glencore could take part is unfortunately a good example of
how American private companies are limited to a great degree due to the influence of sanctions."
Page added
: "The most classic example [of fake news] was of course the claims of my contacts with Igor
Ivanovich [Sechin] which would have been a great honor but nevertheless did not take place."
That Sechin and his associates at Rosneft had been scouring the global markets for a formula
to privatize a 19.5% stake in Rosneft had been well-known for months. No news either was Page's
personal interest in Russian deal-making to support his one-man business,
Global Energy Capital LLC
. Steele has run the two stories together for a client who knew neither, and for reporters at
the Clinton media who didn't check. Page's comments in Moscow reveal he has failed to understand
the "privatization" Sechin was intending. For details, read
this .
If Steele's operations were as well-known to the Russian services as the fake rock caper, the
Russians were capable of planting disinformation intended to confuse or mislead Steele and his
clientele, as well as the long line of Americans arriving in Moscow to advertise themselves as
Trump advisors. "Intelligence is not evidence, and Steele would have known, better than anyone,
that the information he was gathering was not fact and could be wrong", the Guardian has
reported . In Moscow Russian sources say Page has made a record of wishful thinking and hustling
for a job in the new administration; in Washington Trump's announcement of one has yet to be made.
Russian and western intelligence sources say there is one point the Steele dossier reports
more accurately than the report
issued on January 6 by the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. That's entitled
"Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections". Although Air Force Lieutenant-General
James Clapper, the departing Director of National Intelligence (below, left), and his subordinates,
who authored this paper, refer to "Russia's intelligence services" – plural – they claim the operations
against civilian targets were conducted by just one, the military intelligence organization, GRU.
Watch carefully as the Clapper group slips from what it knows about military cyber warfare
(signals interception, weapons jamming) into civilian email hacking. "We assess with high confidence
that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and Wikileaks to release victim data
obtained in cyber operations We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired
from the DNC [Democratic National Committee] and senior Democratic officials to Wikileaks."
Steele's dossier reports that the Russian information campaign was run very differently, and
from several different sources. In overall command, next to Putin, was his chief of staff until
August, Ivanov. Surveillance of Americans in Russia, including electronic and photographic, was
the responsibility of the FSB. The Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) was in charge of "targeting
foreign, especially western governments, penetrating leading foreign business corporations, especially
banks."
Peskov's role was to arrange for media publication of kompromat on Clinton and "black PR",
collected by the FSB and SVR. According to a "former intelligence officer, the FSB was the lead
organization within the Russian state apparatus for cyber operations." Not a word about the GRU.
The FSB, according to Steele, was reportedly in charge of "using botnets and porn traffic to
transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data, and conduct 'altering operations' against the Democratic
party leadership. There is no mention of GRU. In Clapper's version, "Romanian hackers" were GRU
agents. In Steele's version they were "paid by both Trump's team and the Kremlin, though their
orders and ultimate loyalty lay with Ivanov as Head of the PA [Presidential Administration]."
The Steele memo No. 095 of July 2016 even admits there were "Trump moles" and "agents/facilitators
within the Democratic Party structure itself" who leaked internal Clinton campaign emails. The
Trump team, it is also reported, provided the Russians with the information that was their highest
priority – "the activities of [Russian] business oligarchs and their families' activities and
assets in the US." Memo no. 097 of July 30 repeats that "Putin's priority requirement had been
for intelligence on the activities, business and otherwise, in the US of leading Russian oligarchs
and their families." This didn't come from a Russian source. According to Steele, the source was
an American, who was also a Russian émigré, and who was "speaking in confidence to a trusted [American]
associate."
Both the Clapper and Steele dossiers depend on a great deal of speaking in confidence to trusted
associates, but they can't both be right about which Russian agency was in charge of which US
operation. A London associate of Steele's, who doesn't trust him, comments: "I am sure in this
case he left no stone unturned in his search for the truth. Steele and his associates became so
fixated on the import of what he had on his hands, he lost track of the fact that these are compelling
STORIES. Being plausible is vitally important, but that doesn't make the stories true. And if
not true, well they are dust. "
"There may have been only one Trump bed, but there are so many fleas."
As I commented about Mr. Steele several days ago, he must be a relative of the famous Remington
Steele. In true family tradition, both Steeles are products of falsehood. They bring a "little
joy into (peoples) humdrum lives," and "feel (their) hard work ain't been in vain for nuthin,"
to paraphrase that shining star in the firmament, Lina Lamont. All that's missing here is the
obligatory disclaimer; "This product sold for entertainment purposes only." That the "product"
is being bruited about as "real" and of consequence is the basic deception intended.
What should be of worry here is the fact that what passes for journalism today is actually
"disinfotainment." The Paris Revue it ain't.
Thanks for the debunking although Golden Showers Gate is so last week. Perhaps come Friday
the looney sitzkrieg period will finally be over and our famously free press can start reporting
some real stuff.
I know but I thought readers would still appreciate the fine detail, particularly regarding
Steele, since the later efforts to prop up the story revolved around finding some folks to
vouch for him.
Plus – if a patently fake (although plausible) story is not completely debunked, the problem
is that its after-effects linger on in people's consciousness for a long time
I put the odds at 99% that in 2020 we are still seeing polls indicating 50% of Americans
believe Russia hacks or influences America. 75% of Ds and 25% of Rs. In 2021, depending on
election outcome, the ratios may switch, or stay the same. Assuming we didn't have WW3 before
then.
By all means, thank you. Helmer always shines light from unusual directions, and the perspective
shown by looking in formerly unexamined nooks and crannies is always, well, illuminating.
It can't be hacking because Pedestal gave whomever his password. And it can't be espionage
because the DNC is a private organization. It can't be subversion because all the information
that was released was true, unlike the top secret smear campaign on Trump. Can't wait for Trump's
summary of hacking.
I only skimmed through this but thanks. Have had a couple of conversations with people about
this, uh, situation. People who despise Trump really really want to believe it from the bottom
of their hearts, and the fact that Mr. Steele is former MI6 just adds to their fervent belief
in this legend.
A buncha hooey, if ya ask me. From the get-go, Steele seemed desparate to me. He hasn't
been in Russia in quite a long time. I fail to see him as a credible source.
As "b" at Moon of Alabama has said, there's plenty of concerns about Trump, and we should
all be vigilent in witnessing what he does and responding accordingly. This crap is just more
distraction from actually paying attention to Trump's cabinet picks and their vetting process.
How much time has been wasted hyperventilating about golden showers, while some of these cabinet
weasels slip through the congressional vetting process without even having their ethics reviews
completed? Where's the outrage over that? As usual: crickets.
I'm so DONE with the Democratic party and their antics. They're appear to me to be signalling
that they're not intending to really play hard ball with Trump and, you know, actually do the
job that we are paying them to do. Rather they'd prefer to waste time, money and other resources
by trying to play "gotcha" with Trump overy stupid stuff.
This. Is the real point. The media is splashing around noisily like swimmers in a bidet
while some very nasty pieces of work are being installed in the highest office in the federal
bureaucracy. And then there's the new congress. You've got to be scouring the news every day
to catch word of the bills they are writing. As if nothing has changed, and the impact on our
lives will remain small and distant.
+1 yes and also the new Congress Maybe Trump is just a big fat DISTRACTION (although that
remains to be seen of course, I have no absolute certainty on what he will do after Jan 20,
but perhaps it really is all distraction even if unplanned).
And maybe Congress (and the appointees) hold the real power (and they are a piece of work!!!
And people bother protesting Trump and yet by the lack of such go around normalizing these
horrible, possibly even worse than Trump, Republicans that aren't Trump – people like Paul
Ryan).
Steele reminds me of a character in
The Tailor of
Panama , by John Le Carré. That book also could be used relative to
Curveball , who featured in our recent Iraq adventures.
There is an obvious demand for more books that allow us to predict the future.
I did want to find a true fact. Didn't ever believe the Golden Shower story. We know that
the Trump organization sold real estate in NYC to Russian Oligarchs. We can believe that Putin
would have motives to discover who of his orbits bought what & for how much.
Black, White, Red categories of jobs is of use to a fiction spy story writer.
Every big residential real estate developer in NYC sells condos to Russians. Selling real
estate to someone does not give them a hold over you. Let us not forget that the Chinese are
yuuge real estate buyers too but Trump has been rattling China's cage.
The link to the fake rock story, and apparently all the other links to Helmer's website.
Appear to be broken. Or his site is down. I was interested in that, seems like some real Spy
vs. Spy type stuff.
"... "It now turns out that the phony allegations against me were put together by my political opponents and a failed spy afraid of being sued," Trump wrote on Twitter Friday morning, adding , "Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives, both Democrats and Republicans – FAKE NEWS!" ..."
"... According to the New York Times , a wealthy Republican donor funded political opposition group Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. The investigation was continued by Hillary Clinton's Democratic supporters, and the group hired Steele to investigate Trump. ..."
President-elect Donald Trump continued excoriating the forces behind the published document
of unsubstantiated accusations of compromising behavior, accusing his political rivals for leaking
the document prepared by a private investigator.
"It now turns out that the phony allegations against me were put together by my political opponents
and a failed spy afraid of being sued," Trump
wrote
on Twitter Friday morning,
adding
, "Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives, both Democrats and Republicans
– FAKE NEWS!"
The Wall Street Journal
reported that former British spy Christopher Steele, now the director of a private investigation
firm, prepared the document.
According to the
New York Times , a wealthy Republican donor funded political opposition group Fusion
GPS to investigate Trump. The investigation was continued by Hillary Clinton's Democratic supporters,
and the group hired Steele to investigate Trump.
Trump again
pointed
to Russian
denials of possessing information on him and suggested "intelligence" sources released
it.
"... This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News." ..."
"... Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party , seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing - eager ..."
"... What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families. ..."
"... Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1% . ..."
"... The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news by using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved, and unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist with one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link ..."
"... It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated President-elect. ..."
"... Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners declared war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing like losing a presidential election get in the way. ..."
IN JANUARY, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered
his farewell
address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans
of this specific threat to democracy: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." That warning
was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War
mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction's power even
further.
This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and
already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty
tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News."
Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves,
believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their
unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as
a systemic collapse of their party , seemingly divorced further and further from reason with
each passing day, are willing - eager - to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align
with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.
The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide
array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional
coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive
civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times
of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.
But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election
and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive.
Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit
over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous
assertions be instantly venerated as Truth - despite emanating from the very precincts designed
to propagandize and lie - is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality.
And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign
operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.
January 11, 2017 "Their ability to falsify is unlimited": Douglas Valentine provides background
for understanding "USIC v Trump"
What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence
community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families.
Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are
the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses
atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1%
.
Here is an article outlining a journalistic technique getting some more notoriety these days:
The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news by
using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved, and
unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist with
one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link
If any of the significant claims in this "dossier" turn out to be provably false - such
as Cohen's trip to Prague - many people will conclude, with Trump's encouragement, that large
media outlets (CNN and BuzzFeed) and anti-Trump factions inside the government (CIA) are deploying
"Fake News" to destroy him. In the eyes of many people, that will forever discredit - render
impotent - future journalistic exposés
LOL! The horse is long gone from that stable, I think.
Plenty to dislike about Greenwald, but he is certainly very intelligent and competent, and
almost always makes good points well, in his writings. In some ways, he clearly is more genuinely
principled than most on the left who make loud noises about supposed principles that they never
adhere to when it's inconvenient to do so.
If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet
or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot.
"If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet
or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot."
If the CIA have indeed declared war on DJT, Steele's in more danger from them than from
the FSB. After all , a death like that would 'prove' Steele correct.
Here is an article outlining a journalistic technique getting some more notoriety these days:
The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news
by using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved,
and unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist
with one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link
NYTimes follows the script word for word, doubles down:
TODAY's HEADLINES:
How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump
By SCOTT SHANE, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
"The consequences of the dossier, put together by a former British spy named Christopher Steele,
are incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day."
Carlos Slim's Blog (CSB = the NYT) calls Steele "respected". By whom? Typical journalistic
sleight-of-hand.
It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement
of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big
Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated
President-elect.
NYTimes follows the script word for word, doubles down:
TODAY's HEADLINES:
How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump
By SCOTT SHANE, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
"The consequences of the dossier, put together by a former British spy named Christopher Steele,
are incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day."
http://tinyurl.com/ztkodcj
-- one question, tho: I thought public figures could not initiate libel suits ???
Carlos Slim's Blog (CSB = the NYT) calls Steele "respected". By whom? Typical journalistic
sleight-of-hand.
It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement
of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big
Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated
President-elect.
open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect
Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners
declared war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing
like losing a presidential election get in the way.
It's going to be like this for a while, I daresay. Dig in for a long fight. But don't give
up. Never give up.
Lets support our soon to be President! To hell with the rubbish from the MSM. I don't watch
them, don't have cable,(I give a better use to the savings, take the family out at least once
a month), and my window to the world is the Internet!
January 11, 2017 "Their ability to falsify is unlimited": Douglas Valentine provides background
for understanding "USIC v Trump"
What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence
community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/01/11/falsify/
Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are
the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses
atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1%
.
open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect
Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners declared
war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing like
losing a presidential election get in the way.
It's going to be like this for a while, I daresay. Dig in for a long fight. But don't give
up. Never give up.
Lets support our soon to be President! To hell with the rubbish from the MSM. I don't watch
them, don't have cable,(I give a better use to the savings, take the family out at least once
a month), and my window to the world is the Internet!
This "dossier" is what Steve Sailer calls, of social justice warrior bully tactics, a "hate
hoax."
And we all know how irresistible hate hoaxes are and how valuable as propaganda hate hoaxes
are to the Invade The World / Invite The World E$tabli$hment $ellout schmucks who hold the Megaphone
– the same schmucks who bury their follow-up reports that admit that they were wrong about the
"truth" of such "incidents" that are, of course, the usual series of hate hoaxes.
The same schmucks whose Megaphone told us that Saddam's nonexistent WMD's and yellowcake formed
a genuine casus belli , that Trayvon Martin was a cute innocent juvenile murdered deliberately
by a "White Hispanic," that "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" were all gospel truth.
If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet
or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot.
"If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin
pellet or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot."
If the CIA have indeed declared war on DJT, Steele's in more danger from them than from
the FSB. After all , a death like that would 'prove' Steele correct.
The Deeps State better mind their manners lest DT send a busload of Hillbilly's over to get
midevil on their skinny asses. Don't think they won't know where to look or how to get er done.
Heads will be on pikes if they don't watch themselves.
"The deep state was responsible for Trump" – remember how convincing that sounded a month ago?
What happened? Not much at all. The 'show', as it were, goes on. Now we're to suspect the "deep
state was for Trump before they were again' Trump." Entertained yet? They hope so. A great fear
of the dictorial oligarchy is that the average rube will doubt the presentation of team sports
via the courtesans in elected office and their whore/megaphones in the ministry of truth. The
show must go on. Alternatively, Americans can decide they're no longer interested. Look out!
I would hesitate to credit the 1% as lead instigators in this orgy of chaos; they are mainly
above the fray. I would look to their minions who appear terrified the boat may leave and their
tickets canceled. But it is a splendid display of puerility; we are truly shameless. Imagine
this country faced with a real crisis; no don't. We still must pretend we are sane and nobody
around the world is listening and watching the show. Altogether now: WE'RE NUMBER ONE!
Today the
Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)
alleging the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign committee
violated campaign finance law by failing to accurately disclose the purpose and recipient of
payments for the dossier of research alleging connections between then-candidate Donald Trump
and Russia. The CLC's complaint asserts that by effectively hiding these payments from public
scrutiny the DNC and Clinton "undermined the vital public information role of campaign
disclosures."
On October 24, The Washington Post revealed that the DNC and Hillary for America paid
opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig into Trump's Russia ties, but routed the money
through the law firm Perkins Coie and described the purpose as "legal services" on their FEC
reports rather than research. By law, campaign and party committees must disclose the reason
money is spent and its recipient.
"By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public
information role of campaign disclosures," said Adav Noti, senior director, trial litigation
and strategy at CLC, who previously served as the FEC's Associate General Counsel for Policy.
"Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable
for how they raise and spend money. The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take
appropriate action."
"Questions about who paid for this dossier are the subject of intense public interest, and
this is precisely the information that FEC reports are supposed to provide," said Brendan
Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at CLC. "Payments by a campaign or party committee to
an opposition research firm are legal, as long as those payments are accurately disclosed. But
describing payments for opposition research as 'legal services' is entirely misleading and
subverts the reporting requirements."
While details of the payment arrangements remain
scarce, FEC records indicate that the Hillary campaign and the DNC paid a total of $12 million
to Perkins Coie for "legal services." Marc Elias, a Perkins partner and general counsel for
Hillary's campaign, then used some portion of those funds to turn around and hire Fusion GPS
who then contracted with a former British spy, Christopher Steele, to compile the now-infamous
dossier. Per the
Daily Caller :
It was revealed on Tuesday that the Clinton campaign and DNC began paying Fusion GPS, the
research firm that commissioned the dossier, last April to continue research it was conducting
on Trump. The Washington Post reported that Fusion approached lawyers at Perkins Coie, the firm
that represented the campaign and DNC, offering to sell its investigative services.
Marc Elias, a Perkins Coie partner, and the general counsel for the campaign and DNC,
oversaw the operation, according to The Post.
It is not clear how much Democrats, through Perkins Coie, paid Fusion for the project, which
lasted until early November. Federal Election Commission records show that the campaign and DNC
paid the law firm $12 million during the election cycle.
Ironically, most of the sources listed in the dossier were based in Russia and include a
"senior Kremlin official" as well as other "close associates of Vladimir Putin." Moreover, as
CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell notes, it's h ighly likely that some portion of the $12
million paid to Perkins Coie by the DNC and Hillary campaign made it's way into the pockets of
those "senior Kremlin officials" as compensation for the services.
In the dossier, Steele cites numerous anonymous sources, many of which work in the upper
echelons of the Russian government.
The first two sources cited in the dossier's first memo, dated June 20, 2016, are "a senior
Russian Foreign Ministry figure" and "a former top level Russian intelligence officer still
active inside the Kremlin."
A third source is referred to as "a senior Russian financial official." Other sources in the
dossier are described as "a senior Kremlin official" and sources close to Igor Sechin, the head
of Russian oil giant Rosneft and a close associate of Vladimir Putin's.
To summarize, after a full year of mainstream media hysteria over alleged Trump-Russia
collusion, it now appears as though the Hillary campaign may have been the only one to funnel
cash to "Kremlin operatives" in return for political dirt...
Of course, we have no doubt that Hillary was in the dark about all of these
arrangements.
trump will closely (hillery's undoing) follow suit as a 'Protest far greater than the
final days of the Vietnam Era' sweep the country....--- wanting war with NK (China &
Russia).
The long-help suspicions that Andrew McCabe is intimately involved in this dossier
procurement are gaining traction:
"...FBI insiders say fired FBI Director James Comey and Andrew McCabe , deputy FBI
director, used Bureau funds to underwrite the controversial dossier on President Donald Trump
during the 2016 presidential election, sources confirm.
And the deal to dig dirt on a presidential candidate was put together with the help of
Sen. John McCain, sources said.
These new revelations in fact might be the worst kept secrets in Washington, D.C. but now
rank-and-file FBI agents want the Bureau to come clean on its relationship with the author of
the problematic Trump dossier, former British spy Christopher Steele..."
"...Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS
and the FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney General
Loretta Lynch , now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the Hillary
Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe , who is under investigation by
the Senate and the Justice inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial
and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democratic activist wife.
Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with
Steele..."
"...Steele hadn't worked in Moscow since the 1990s and didn't actually travel there to
gather intelligence on Trump firsthand. He relied on third-hand "friend of friend" sourcing.
In fact, most of his claimed Russian sources spoke not directly to him but "in confidence to
a trusted compatriot" who, in turn, spoke to Steele -- and always anonymously.
But his main source may have been Google. Most of the information branded as
"intelligence" was merely rehashed from news headlines or cut and pasted -- replete with
errors -- from Wikipedia.
In fact, much of the seemingly cloak-and-dagger information connecting Trump and his
campaign advisers to Russia had already been reported in the media at the time Steele wrote
his monthly reports..."
"... Mr. McCabe's appearance of a partisan conflict of interest relating to Clinton
associates only magnifies the importance of those questions. That is particularly true if Mr.
McCabe was involved in approving or establishing the FBI's reported arrangement with Mr.
Steele, or if Mr. McCabe vouched for or otherwise relied on the politically-funded dossier in
the course of the investigation. Simply put, the American people should know if the FBI's
second-in-command relied on Democrat-funded opposition research to justify an investigation
of the Republican presidential campaign...."
Now it is clear that Steele dossier was clearly a British intelligence services fake ordered and
paid by DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign... And now we know who paid for it. and we know
who tried to "spread the news". Atlantic tried to embellish actions of DNC and Hillary Clinton
campaign but there were clearly against the law.
Not that different from Iraq WMD and uranium purchase story
Notable quotes:
"... Other reporting, including from my colleague Rosie Gray , has already begun to poke holes in the assertions contained in the dossier. Trump denied the report on Twitter, writing, "FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!" Now that the documents are in the public domain, the work under way within some news organizations to suss out what is true in the report will likely accelerate. ..."
"... Lawfare ..."
"... That raises a range of potential objections. First, it unfairly forces a public figure -- Trump, in this case -- to respond to a set of allegations that might or might not be entirely scurrilous; the reporters, by their own admission, do not know. ..."
Late Tuesday afternoon, CNN published a story reporting that intelligence officials had given
Trump, President Obama, and eight top members of Congress a two-page memo, summarizing allegations
that Russian agents claimed they had compromising information on Trump. (If you're finding this chain
difficult to follow, you're not alone;
I tried to parse the story in some detail here .) CNN said officials had given no indication
that they believed the material in the memo to be accurate. That memo, in turn, was based on 35 pages
of materials gathered by a former British intelligence operative who had gathered them while conducting
opposition research for various Trump opponents, both Republicans and Democrats.
The story left many questions unanswered -- most importantly, whether the claims were accurate,
but also just what the claims were; CNN said it was withholding the contents of the memo because
it could not independently verify the allegations.
The second question was answered in short order, when BuzzFeed
posted a PDF of the 35-page dossier a little after 6 p.m. Even in their posting, BuzzFeed
acknowledged some misgivings about the document, admitting that it was full of unverified claims.
"It is not just unconfirmed: It includes some clear errors," the story noted. Verified or not, the
claims were highly explosive, and in some cases quite graphic. Because they are not verified, I will
not summarize them here, though they can be read at BuzzFeed or in any other number of places.
Other reporting,
including from my colleague Rosie Gray , has already begun to poke holes in the assertions contained
in the dossier. Trump denied the report on Twitter, writing, "FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH
HUNT!" Now that the documents are in the public domain, the work under way within some news organizations
to suss out what is true in the report will likely accelerate.
Sensing that the decision to publish would be controversial, BuzzFeed editor-in-chief
Ben Smith wrote a memo to staff explaining the thinking, and
then posted it
on Twitter .
"Our presumption is to be transparent in our journalism and to share what we have with our readers.
We have always erred on the side of publishing. In this case, the document was in wide circulation
at the highest levels of American government and media," Smith wrote. "Publishing this document was
not an easy or simple call, and people of good will may disagree with our choice. But publishing
the dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017."
Smith alluded to the document's wide circulation, a nod to the fact that many outlets have either
acquired or been offered the chance to view it -- a group that includes CNN, Politico (
whose Ken Vogel said he'd chased the story ), and Lawfare
. David Corn of Mother Jones also
published a story based on information collected by the British intelligence operative in October.
Smith's reasoning is sincere and considered, but the conclusion is highly dubious. Even more perturbing
was the reasoning in the published story. "Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the
full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect
that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government," the story stated.
That raises a range of potential objections. First, it unfairly forces a public figure --
Trump, in this case -- to respond to a set of allegations that might or might not be entirely scurrilous;
the reporters, by their own admission, do not know. Second, the appeal to "transparency" notwithstanding,
this represents an abdication of the basic responsibility of journalism. The reporter's job is not
to simply dump as much information as possible into the public domain, though that can at times be
useful too, as some of WikiLeaks' revelations have shown. It is to gather information, sift through
it, and determine what is true and what is not. The point of a professional journalist corps is to
have people whose job it is to do that work on behalf of society, and who can cultivate sources and
expertise to help them adjudicate it. A pluralistic press corps is necessary to avoid monolithic
thinking among reporters, but transparent transmission of misinformation is no more helpful or clarifying
than no information at all.
Looks like the US Senate is a real can of worms...
Notable quotes:
"... One involved the media, which in October were given and encouraged to publish the "report" by the authors of the report (or their sponsors), purportedly a former British intelligence officer working for a private intelligence company ..."
"... Remember, we have a dubious report constructed for the purpose of discrediting Donald Trump, which was first commissioned by one of his Republican primary rivals and later completed under the patronage of someone in Hillary's camp. ..."
"... Enter John McCain. According to media reports, the dossier was handed to Sen. McCain -- again, a strong Trump opponent and proponent of conflict with Russia -- by a former UK ambassador (who presumably received it from the source, a former British intelligence officer). ..."
"... Senator McCain is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one of the most powerful members of the US Senate. Consider the impact of being handed a strange report by some private intelligence-firm-for-hire or a media outlet versus being handed a report by one of the most powerful men in the US government. McCain's involving himself in the case gave the report a sense of legitimacy that it would not otherwise have had. Was this "laundering" intentional on his part? We do not know, but given his position on Trump and Russia that possibility must be considered. ..."
"... So great was the pressure on McCain to come clean on his decision to meet privately with the FBI Director to hand over this report that he released a statement earlier today portraying himself as nothing more than a good citizen, passing information to the proper authorities for them to act on if they see fit. ..."
We all know what money laundering is. When you need to hide the fact that the money in your possession
comes by way of nefarious sources, you transfer it through legitimate sources and it appears clean
on the other end. It's standard practice among thieves, extortionists, drug dealers, and the like.
The same practice can even be used to "clean" intelligence that comes by dubious sources, and
sometimes even US Senators may involve themselves in such dark activities. Case in point US Senator
John McCain (R-AZ), whose virulent opposition to Donald Trump is outmatched only by his total dedication
to fomenting a new cold (or hot?) war with Russia.
While the world was caught up in the more salacious passages from a purported opposition research
report on Donald Trump showing all manner of collusion with Putin's Russia -- and Russia's possession
of blackmail-able kompromat
on Trump -- something very interesting was revealed about the custody of the information.
The "dossier" on Trump seemed to follow two chains of custody. One involved the media, which in October
were given and encouraged to publish the "report" by the authors of the report (or their sponsors),
purportedly a former British intelligence officer working for a private intelligence company. Only
David Corn of Mother Jones bit, and his resulting story picked over the report to construct a mess
of innuendo on Trump's relation to Russia that was short on any evidence.
The other chain of custody is what interests us. Remember, we have a dubious report constructed
for the purpose of discrediting Donald Trump, which was first commissioned by one of his Republican
primary rivals and later completed under the patronage of someone in Hillary's camp. It was created
for a specific political purpose, which may have tainted its reception among more objective governmental
sources had that been known.
Enter John McCain. According to
media reports, the dossier was handed to Sen. McCain -- again, a strong Trump opponent and proponent
of conflict with Russia -- by a former UK ambassador (who presumably received it from the source,
a former British intelligence officer).
Senator McCain then felt duty-bound to bring this "intelligence report" directly (and privately)
to the personal attention of FBI Director James Comey. From this hand-off to Comey, the report then
became part of the Intelligence Community's assessment of Russian interference in the US presidential
election.
Senator McCain is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one of the most powerful
members of the US Senate. Consider the impact of being handed a strange report by some private intelligence-firm-for-hire
or a media outlet versus being handed a report by one of the most powerful men in the US government.
McCain's involving himself in the case gave the report a sense of legitimacy that it would not otherwise
have had. Was this "laundering" intentional on his part? We do not know, but given his position on
Trump and Russia that possibility must be considered.
So great was the pressure on McCain to come clean on his decision to meet privately with the
FBI Director to hand over this report that he
released a statement earlier today portraying himself as nothing more than a good citizen, passing
information to the proper authorities for them to act on if they see fit.
"... For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful. ..."
"... Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued. ..."
"... puts his name on stuff ..."
"... (2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy ..."
"... Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky – ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the US by means of "gravitational weapons". ..."
"... Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele? ..."
"... But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President of the US is to be discredited appears strange. ..."
"... Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible, you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational, and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st and ..."
"... Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a rigged game, you don't care about the niceties. ..."
"... transition ..."
"... And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days. ..."
"... Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. ..."
In any case, a link to the following story in Hamburg's ridiculously sober-sided Die Zeit came
over the transom:
So schockiert von Trump wie alle anderen ("So shocked by Trump like everyone else"). The reporter
is Alexej Kowaljow
, a Russian journalist based in Moscow. Before anyone goes "ZOMG! The dude is Russian
!", everything Kowaljow writes is based on open sources or common-sense information presumably available
to citizens of any nation. The bottom line for me is that if the world is coming to believe that
Americans are idiots, it's not necessarily because Americans elected Trump as President.
I'm going to lay out two claims and two questions from Kowaljow's piece. In each case, I'll quote
the conventional, Steele and intelligence community-derived wisdom in our famously free press, and
then I'll quote Kowaljow. I think Kowaljow wins each time. Easily. I don't think Google Translate
handles irony well, but I sense that Kowaljow is deploying it freely.
(1) Trump's Supposed Business Dealings in Russia Are Commercial Puffery
Here's
the
section on Russia in Time's article on Trump's business dealings; it's representative. I'm going
to quote it all so you can savor it. Read it carefully.
Donald Trump's Many, Many Business Dealings in 1 Map
Russia
"For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," Trump
tweeted
in July, one day before he called on the country to "find" a batch of emails deleted from
Hillary Clinton's private server. Nonetheless, Russia's extraordinary meddling in the 2016 U.S.
election-a declassified report released by U.S. intelligence agencies in January disclosed that
intercepted conversations captured senior Russian officials celebrating Trump's win-as well as
Trump's complimentary remarks about Russian President have stirred widespread questions about
the President-elect's pursuit of closer ties with Moscow. Several members of Trump's inner circle
have business links to Russia, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who
consulted for pro-Russia politicians in the Ukraine. Former foreign policy adviser Carter
Page worked in Russia and
maintains ties there.
During the presidential transition, former Georgia Congressman and Trump campaign surrogate
Jack Kingston
told a gathering of businessmen in Moscow that the President-elect could lift U.S. sanctions.
According to his own son, Trump has long relied on Russian customers as a source of income.
"Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump
Jr.
told a Manhattan real estate conference in 2008 , according to an account posted on the website
of trade publication eTurboNews. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
Back to map .
Read that again, if you can stand it. Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump?
Do you see the name of any businessperson who closed a deal with Trump? Do you, in fact, see any
reporting at all? At most, you see commercial puffery by Trump the Younger: "Russians [in Russia?]
make up a pretty [qualifier] disproportionate [whatever that means] cross-section [whatever that
means] of a lot of [qualifier] our assets."
Now Kowaljow (via Google Translate, so forgive any solecisms):
For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30
years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although
Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest
hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful.
Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the
Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump
Vodka was discontinued.
Because think about it: Trump puts his name on stuff . Towers in Manhattan, hotels, casinos,
golf courses, steaks. Anything in Russia with Trump's name on it? Besides the failed vodka venture?
No? Case closed, then.
(2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy
Five reasons intel community believes Russia interfered in election
The attacks dovetailed with other Russian disinformation campaigns
The report covers more than just the hacking effort. It also contains a detailed list account
of information warfare against the United States from Russia through other means.
Political party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who the report lists as a "pro-Kremlin proxy,"
said before the election that, if Trump won, Russia would 'drink champagne' to celebrate their
new ability to advance in Syria and Ukraine.
Now Kowaljow:
The report of the American intelligence services on the Russian interference in the US elections,
published at the beginning of January, was notoriously neglected by Russians, because the name
of Vladimir Zhirinovsky was mentioned among the "propaganda activities of Russia", which had announced
that in the event of an election victory of Trump champagne to want to drink.
Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky
– ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the
head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is
neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing
populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the
US by means of "gravitational weapons".
If, therefore, the Kremlin had indeed had the treacherous plan of helping Trump to power, it
would scarcely have been made known about Zhirinovsky.
The American equivalent would be. Give me a moment to think of an American politician who's both
so delusional and such a laughingstock that no American President could possibly
consider using them as a proxy in a devilishly complex informational warfare campaign Sara Palin?
Anthony Weiner? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Na ga happen.
And now to the two questions.
(3) Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele?
Kowaljow:
But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and
contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption
that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary
of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President
of the US is to be discredited appears strange.
Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible,
you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational,
and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st
and 20th centuries, suborning the President of the United States, and whose intelligence agencies
are (3) leakly like a sieve. Does that make sense? (Of course, the devilish Russkis could have fed
Steele bad data, knowing he'd then feed it to the American intelligence agencies, who would lap it
up, but that's another narrative.)
(4) How Do You Compromise the Uncompromisable?
Funny how suddenly the word kompromat was everywhere, wasn't it? So sophisticated. Everybody
loves to learn a new word! Regarding the "Golden Showers" - more sophistication! - Kowaljow writes:
But even if such a compromise should exist, what sense should it have, since the most piquant
details have long been publicly discussed in public, and had no effect on the votes of the elected
president? Like all the other scandals trumps, which passed through the election campaign, they
also remained unresolved, including those who were concerned about sex.
This also includes what is known as a compromise, compromising material, that is, video shots
of the unsightly nature, which can destroy both the political career and the life of a person.
The word Kompromat shines today – as in the past Perestroika – in all headlines; It was not invented
in Russia, of course. But in Russia in the Yeltsin era, when the great clans in the power gave
bitter fights and intensively used the media, works of this kind have ended more than just a brilliant
career. General Prosecutor Jurij Skuratov was dismissed after a video had been shown in the country-wide
television channels: There, a person "who looks like the prosecutor's office" had sex with two
prostitutes.
Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for
whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or
the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally
wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a
rigged game, you don't care about the niceties.
Conclusion
It would be nice, wouldn't it, if our famously free press was actually covering the Trump
transition , instead of acting like their newsrooms are mountain redoubts for an irrendentist
Clinton campaign. It would be nice, for example, to know:
The content and impact of Trump's Executive Orders.
Ditto, regulations.
Personnel decisions below the Cabinet level. Who are the Flexians?
Obama policies that will remain in place, because both party establishments support them.
Charters, for example.
Republican inroads in Silicon Valley.
The future of the IRS, since Republicans have an axe to grind with it.
Mismatch between State expectations for infrastructure and Trump's implementation
And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which
Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich
with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy
of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days.
Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were
all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility
voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. Failing
unless, of course, you're the sort of sleaze merchant who
downsizes the newsroom because, hey, it's all about the clicks.
"... BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Steele had previously been an intelligence officer - rather than agent - in MI6, who would have run a team of agents as an intelligence gatherer. ..."
"... Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President Obama last week. ..."
"... But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned. ..."
"... Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community last week but has since described them as fake news, accusing the US intelligence services of leaking the dossier. ..."
An ex-MI6 officer who is believed to have prepared memos claiming Russia has compromising material
on US President-elect Donald Trump is now in hiding, the BBC understands.
Christopher Steele, who runs a London-based intelligence firm, is believed to have left his home
this week.
The memos contain unsubstantiated claims that Russian security officials have compromising material
on Mr Trump.
The US president-elect said the claims were "fake news" and "phoney stuff".
Mr Steele has been widely named as the author of a series of memos - which have been published
as a dossier in some US media - containing extensive allegations about Mr Trump's personal life and
his campaign's relationship with the Russian state.
... ... ...
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Steele had previously been an intelligence officer
- rather than agent - in MI6, who would have run a team of agents as an intelligence gatherer.
However, as Mr Steele was now working in the private sector, our correspondent said, there was
"probably a fair bit of money involved" in the commissioning of the reports.
He said there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations and it was still possible the dossier
had been based on what "people had said" about Mr Trump "without any proof".
Donald J. Tump Twit
@realDonaldTrump
James Clapper called me yesterday to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally
circulated. Made up, phony facts. Too bad!
... ... ...
Obama briefing
The 35-page dossier on Mr Trump - which is believed to have been commissioned initially by Republicans
opposed to Mr Trump - has been circulating in Washington for some time.
Media organisations, uncertain of its credibility, initially held back from publication. However,
the entire series of reports has now been posted online, with Mr Steele named as the author.
Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President
Obama last week.
But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have
been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned.
Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community
last week but has since described them as fake news, accusing the US intelligence services of leaking
the dossier.
So guardian clearly supports Steele dossier. Nice... So the guy clearly tried to influence
the US election and Guardian neoliberal honchos and their Russophobic presstitutes (like Luke
Harding) are OK with it. They just complain about Russian influence. British elite hypocrisy in action...
Notable quotes:
"... Published in January by BuzzFeed , the dossier suggested that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russian intelligence before the US election to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Citing unidentified sources, it said Trump had been "compromised" by Russia's FSB spy agency during a trip to Moscow in 2013. ..."
"... Trump dismissed the dossier as fake news and said Steele was a "failed spy". Vladimir Putin also rejected the dossier. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed Russia did not collect kompromat – compromising material – on Trump or anyone else. ..."
"... 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. ..."
Christopher Steele speaks publicly for first time since the file was revealed and thanks
supporters for 'kind messages'
The former MI6 agent behind the
controversial Trump dossier has returned to work, nearly two months after its publication caused
an international scandal and furious denials from Washington and Moscow.
Christopher Steele posed for a photograph outside the office of his business intelligence company
Orbis in Victoria, London on Tuesday. Speaking for the first time since his
dossier was revealed , Steele said he had received messages of support.
"I'm now going to be focusing my efforts on supporting the broader interests of our company here,"
he told the Press Association. "I'd like to say a warm thank you to everyone who sent me kind messages
and support over the last few weeks."
Steele, who left British intelligence in 2009 and co-founded Orbis with an MI6 colleague, said
he would not comment substantively on the contents of the dossier: "Just to add, I won't be making
any further statements or comments at this time."
Published in January by BuzzFeed , the dossier suggested that Donald Trump's team had colluded
with Russian intelligence before the US election to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Citing unidentified
sources, it said Trump had been "compromised" by Russia's FSB spy agency during a trip to Moscow
in 2013.
It alleged that Trump was secretly videoed with Russian prostitutes in a suite in the Ritz-Carlton
hotel in Moscow. The prostitutes allegedly urinated on the bed used by Barack Obama during a presidential
visit.
Trump dismissed the dossier as fake news and said Steele was a "failed spy". Vladimir Putin
also rejected the dossier. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed
Russia did not collect
kompromat – compromising material – on Trump or anyone else.
Steele's friends say he has been keen to go back to work for some weeks. They insist he has not
been in hiding but has been keeping a low profile to avoid paparazzi who have been camped outside
his family home in Surrey.
Several of the lurid stories about him that have appeared in the press have been wrong, said friends.
The stories include claims that Steele met Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian dissident who was murdered
in 2006 with a radioactive cup of tea,
probably on Putin's orders .
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.
"... Despite more than twelve months of non-stop charges against the Russians, and claims of Trump's collusion with Russia, not a shred of hard evidence has yet been presented to back these allegations, which are at the heart of the coup plot being run against the President. ..."
"... Brennan set up a task force to look into the Russian meddling charges after a former British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, delivered a fraudulent dossier, prepared by an "ex"-MI6 operative, to Brennan, through anti-Trump Senator John McCain. ..."
In a desperate attempt to defend its collapsing "Russiagate" narrative, the Washington Post launched
an attack on The Nation magazine for its August 9 article by Patrick Lawrence, "A New Report Raises
Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack." Lawrence's article, in the most prestigious left/progressive
magazine in the U.S., broke the attempted media blackout of the memo sent by the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) on July 24 to President Trump, which effectively refutes the claims
of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, allegedly through "hacking" Democratic National Committee
(DNC) emails and releasing them to Wikileaks.
Despite more than twelve months of non-stop charges
against the Russians, and claims of Trump's collusion with Russia, not a shred of hard evidence has
yet been presented to back these allegations, which are at the heart of the coup plot being run against
the President.
The Nation article was followed by a prominent story in Bloomberg News and one in Salon magazine,
which both reported on the Nation article, and the VIPS memo, and how it challenges the narrative
that Trump owes his election victory to Putin and Russia. That story was concocted by leading figures
in British intelligence, and leaked to the U.S. media by corrupt elements of Obama's intelligence
team, led by the trio of Brennan, Clapper and Comey, as part of the "regime change" against Trump
they launched after his November 2016 election victory.
Brennan set up a task force to look into
the Russian meddling charges after a former British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, delivered
a fraudulent dossier, prepared by an "ex"-MI6 operative, to Brennan, through anti-Trump Senator John
McCain.
The attack on The Nation was posted on the Post's "Eric Wemple Blog" on August 15, and is a blatant
attempt to force The Nation's editors to not merely repudiate the Lawrence article, but to join the
campaign against Trump's desire for cooperation with Russia. Wemple's attempt to dismiss the authoritative
report of the VIPS has no substance, and is written to bludgeon the magazine's editors to adopt the
talking points of the coup plotters. As such, it presents the same weak, sophistical argument presented
by the DNC, which released a statement on the VIPS memo which simply reasserted the conclusion reached
by "U.S. intelligence agencies" of Russian interference, adding, "Any suggestion otherwise is false,
and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration."
Such dangerous silliness was countered by Salon's Danielle Ryan, who wrote on August 15,
"For
the media and mainstream liberals to dismiss information presented in The Nation as lacking in evidence
would be breathtakingly ironic, given how little evidence they required to build a narrative" against
Trump and Putin. She concluded that if the VIPS memo is right, "those who pushed the Russia hacking
narrative with little evidence have a lot to answer for."
A Special Report from the Accuracy in Media Center for Investigative Journalism; Cliff Kincaid, Director
The Role of the CIA's John Brennan
In its lengthy feature article on FBI Director James Comey, The
New York Times disingenuously evades the new evidence from the
British press that nails former President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan for using
the "Trump dossier" as weaponized fake intelligence, which he wielded to spearhead an interagency
task force to investigate Trump during and after the election campaign. The Times article's sole
mention of Brennan suppresses any mention of its own reporting by three of the same reporters on
January 19 about the six-agency, anti-Trump task force or working group (and naturally there
is no investigative reporting to dig into the task force's scandalous operations).
But, of course, that was the same New York Times article, in its January 20 print edition, that
headlined the "
Wiretapped Trump Aides ." The Times wants to forget all about that, now that President Trump
has made the Obama "wire tapping" an issue.
The timing and use of the "Trump dossier" suggests that Hillary's agents during the campaign panicked
when Julian Assange announced on
June 12 , 2016, that he would soon release emails from within the Hillary campaign -- unauthorized
and uncensored -- not official State Department releases redacted to protect Hillary.
It seems as if Hillary's backers hired someone to throw together any sleazy garbage that they could
use to blunt the impact, or even nullify the potentially disastrous effects of the Hillary/DNC emails,
which as far as they knew could come out any day or any minute from WikiLeaks. The first Christopher
Steele report in the "dossier," with the vilest allegations of all, was rushed out in record time,
dated barely a week later, on
June 20 .
From their perspective of defending Hillary, it had to be something on Trump so foul, so disgusting,
that no one would pay any attention to what the WikiLeaks emails from Hillary said or disclosed.
Hence, the first "Trump dossier" report concocted on or before June 20 tried to claim Trump hired
prostitutes to "golden shower" (urinate on) the former Obama bed in the Moscow hotel (or as we have
seen, "someone" said "someone else" said Trump "may" have done so, and it "may" have been taped,
maybe in "some year" or other, etc. Our words in quotes). The Hillary funders evidently did not count
on the "Trump dossier" being so repulsive that even the most hate-filled major media, such as The
New York Times and CNN, could not stomach publishing it or risking lawsuits from a billionaire like
Trump. So they simply drew attention to the document without reproducing it, at first only by veiled
allusion.
As the election approached, the increasingly frantic media began leaking out more and more from
the sickening "dossier." (
NYT
, July 29;
Yahoo News September 23;
Mother Jones October 31;
Washington Post November 1,
Newsweek November 4,
Salon November 4, etc.)
In addition to Comey, who took the bait, we have
evidence
that Obama's CIA director
John Brennan was involved in spreading the allegations, briefing Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) (who
turned around and lambasted Comey), and using it and illegal NSA-GCHQ wiretap data to set up an interagency
task force to investigate Trump. Such CIA-led actions were in violation of the CIA charter forbidding
them from carrying out any law enforcement, police or internal security functions (50 U.S. Code 3036(d)(1)).
(AIM
Special Report , April 17)
Trying to make something out of nothing, the illegal intelligence agency leaks suggest that the
CIA has found some minor "aspects" in the "dossier" that are "
corroborated
" by intercepted wiretap communications. But these turned out to be pseudo-corroborations of
long-known matters of public knowledge (such as alleged Trump adviser Carter Page's "secret" visit
to Moscow, actually openly reported in the
press on July 7).
In fact, essentially the same story indicating that a few business meetings in the "dossier" were
"confirmed" by intercepted communications -- but not important facts -- ran in
Yahoo News on September 23, 2016.
So this is old fake news, designed to magnify and exaggerate trivia to suggest the opposite of
what was actually known, which was that nothing incriminating or wrongful about Trump associate's
business activities with Russia had been found -- no "smoking gun." (
AIM
, Febrary 20 and
April 17 , 2017; cf.
Washington Post November 1, 2016; and
CNN )
"... Until now, Susan Rice had always denied spying on Donald Trump and his team both in the transition period and also in the run up to the presidential elections. There have been several times when President Trump has denounced the illegal tappings that the Obama Administration had authorized against him, which the Press in the United States had qualified as completely fabricated. ..."
"... President Richard Nixon had been forced to resign for spying on the Democratic Party's electoral headquarters. However, in the case of Susan Rice, the Congressmen have not "acquired a conviction" that she had committed a federal crime and that she had tried to cover it up. ..."
"... In contrast, President Obama's team is presenting the tappings ordered by Susan Rice as wholly legitimate in the context of an investigation into possible Russian interferences. Furthermore, it is a fact that the United Arab Emirates has organized at the same time, a meeting in the Seychelles, between someone close to President Putin and Erik Prince (former director of Blackwater, military advisor to the Emirates and brother of the current Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos). ..."
Susan Rice, the former National Security Advisor, has admitted before the House of Representatives'
Intelligence Committee that during the transition period, she had spied on Donald Trump and his team
when they were in Trump Tower, New York. She also admitted that she had had the names of Donald Trump,
Jared Kushner, Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon deleted from summaries of the tappings.
Mrs Rice has guaranteed that her intention was not to find out the secret plans of the Team Trump.
She just was trying to figure out what the United Arab Emirates was up to, and was hoping to gather
relevant information from the content of an interview that the President Elect was supposed to have
given to the Prince and heir to the throne of Abu Dhabi.
Until now, Susan Rice had always denied spying on Donald Trump and his team both in the transition
period and also in the run up to the presidential elections. There have been several times when President
Trump has denounced the illegal tappings that the Obama Administration had authorized against him,
which the Press in the United States had qualified as completely fabricated.
President Richard Nixon had been forced to resign for spying on the Democratic Party's electoral
headquarters. However, in the case of Susan Rice, the Congressmen have not "acquired a conviction"
that she had committed a federal crime and that she had tried to cover it up.
In contrast, President Obama's team is presenting the tappings ordered by Susan Rice as wholly
legitimate in the context of an investigation into possible Russian interferences. Furthermore, it
is a fact that the United Arab Emirates has organized at the same time, a meeting in the Seychelles,
between someone close to President Putin and Erik Prince (former director of Blackwater, military
advisor to the Emirates and brother of the current Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos).
"... Federal law enforcement sources said Bharara was simply following the orders of Attorney General Lynch, who lobbied the State Department to issue the disavowed Russian a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. This permitted Veselnitskaya entry into the United States for the sole purpose of entrapping Trump associates to use as fuel to commission wiretaps, federal sources said. ..."
"... Veselnitskaya may have been paid as well by the U.S. government, FBI sources said. It was reported last week that Steele, who compiled the Trump dossier was paid at least $100,000 from FBI funds as well. But that came later, after the wiretapping was well underway. ..."
"... Federal sources said the wiretaps on Trump insiders began in late 2015, almost a year before the 2016 election. The targets then were Flynn and Page, sources confirmed. When no smoking gun was recovered from those initial taps, U.S. intelligence agencies moved to broaden the scope through their newly-formed alliance. ..."
"... Intelligence garnered from the British eavesdropping, which again was merely a front for the NSA, was then used in August 2016 to secure a legitimate FISA warrant on Manafort, Trump Jr. and Kushner. That warrant was issued on or about September, 2016, federal sources confirm. ..."
And none of it was very legal. In fact, most of it was very illegal, according to federal law enforcement sources who are blowing
the whistle on a sweeping scheme to undermine the Executive branch and the electorate's choice for president of the United States.
And according to high ranking FBI sources, the Bureau played a definitive role in plotting this sweeping privacy breach. But the
FBI had much help from the NSA, CIA, the Office of of the Director of National Intelligence, Treasury financial crimes division under
DHS, and the Justice Department, federal law enforcement sources confirmed. The Deep State caretakers involved are familiar names:
James Comey (FBI), John Brennan (CIA), James Clapper (ODNI), Loretta Lynch (DOJ), Jeh Johnson (DHS), Admiral Michael Rogers (NSA).
And then-director of GCHQ Robert Hannigan who has since resigned from the esteemed British spy agency.
President Barack Obama's White House too could be implicated, sources said. But while evidence certainly points to involvement
of the Obama administration, sources said they did not have access to definitive intelligence proving such a link.
Here is what we now know, per intelligence gleaned form federal law enforcement sources with insider knowledge of what amounts
to a plot by U.S. intelligence agencies to secure back door and illegal wiretaps of President Trump's associates:
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates
and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates
to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed
by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct
NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher
Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial
Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates
as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international
security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it
is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not
illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian
collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who spearheaded the Trump Tower meeting with the Trump campaign trio, was previously barred from
entering the United Sates due to her alleged connections to the Russian FSB (the modern replacement of the cold-war-era KGB).
Yet mere days before the June meeting, Veselnitskaya was granted a rare visa to enter the United States from Preet Bharara, the
then U.S. Attorney for the southern district of New York. Bharara could not be reached for comment and did not respond the a Twitter
inquiry on the Russian's visa by True Pundit.
Federal law enforcement sources said Bharara was simply following the orders of Attorney General Lynch, who lobbied the State
Department to issue the disavowed Russian a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. This permitted Veselnitskaya entry into the United States for
the sole purpose of entrapping Trump associates to use as fuel to commission wiretaps, federal sources said.
Veselnitskaya may have been paid as well by the U.S. government, FBI sources said. It was reported last week that Steele,
who compiled the Trump dossier was paid at least $100,000 from FBI funds as well. But that came later, after the wiretapping was
well underway.
The illegal eavesdropping started long before Steele's dossier. Federal sources said the wiretaps on Trump insiders began
in late 2015, almost a year before the 2016 election. The targets then were Flynn and Page, sources confirmed. When no smoking gun
was recovered from those initial taps, U.S. intelligence agencies moved to broaden the scope through their newly-formed alliance.
Intelligence garnered from the British eavesdropping, which again was merely a front for the NSA, was then used in August
2016 to secure a legitimate FISA warrant on Manafort, Trump Jr. and Kushner. That warrant was issued on or about September, 2016,
federal sources confirm.
It was the third time the cabal of U.S. intelligence agencies sought a FISA warrant for the Trump associates and this time it
was approved.
FBI sources said finally obtaining the FISA warrant was important because it provided the agencies cover for previous illegal
wiretapping which they believed would never be discovered.
"This would make for an incredible string of Senate hearings," one federal law enforcement source said. "I don't think they ever
thought he (Trump) would win and information would come out about how they manipulated evidence."
The level of corruption is too deep and people in the FBI/DOJ are complicit, they are covering up the Elite crimes, they
won't do their job, nothing is going to happen, no one is going to jail.
Yeah. This is who the Russian economist close to Putin was talking about when he sid they aren't worried about Nazis in the
Ukraine, that they are worried about the Nazis in Washington.
Trump knew about this because Mike Rogers tipped him off Nov. 17 in an unannounced meeting at Trump Towers. The next day campaign
operations moved to New Jersey and Clapper sent a letter to Obama demanding Rogers be fired.
Baharra was fired...Comey was fired...Harrington resigned Jan 23...Rogers still has his job.
see more
Neocons still dream of Trump impeachment. Neutering him is not enough... the number of potentially illegal wiretaps of Trump associates
suggests that threr was a plan to derail plan in three letter agencies headquarters (with blessing of Obama). Plan of interfere with
the US election to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times reported Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. ..."
"... A typical white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate. ..."
"... Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly. ..."
Then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort at the Republican National Convention. (Matt Rourke/Associated Press)
Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel
Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader
inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign.
CNN
reported
Monday night that the FBI obtained a warrant to listen in on Manafort's phone calls back in 2014. The warrant was part of an
investigation into U.S. firms that may have performed undisclosed work for the Ukrainian government. The surveillance reportedly
lapsed for a time but was begun again last year when the FBI learned about possible ties between Russian operatives and Trump associates.
This news is a big deal primarily because of what it takes to obtain such a wiretap order. The warrant reportedly was issued under
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A FISA warrant requires investigators to demonstrate to the FISA court that there is probable
cause to believe the target may be acting as an unlawful foreign agent.
When
news broke last month that Mueller was using a grand jury to conduct his investigation, many reported it with unnecessary breathlessness.
Although a grand jury investigation is certainly significant, a prosecutor does not need court approval or a finding of probable
cause to issue a grand jury subpoena, and Mueller's use of a grand jury
was not unexpected .
A FISA warrant is another matter. It means investigators have demonstrated probable cause to an independent judicial authority.
Obtaining a warrant actually says much more about the strength of the underlying allegations than issuing a grand jury subpoena.
That's also why the search warrant
executed at Manafort's home in July was such a significant step in the investigation. Unlike a grand jury subpoena, the search
warrant required Mueller's team to demonstrate to a judge that a crime probably had been committed.
But it's important not to get too far in front of the story. The FBI surveillance of Manafort reportedly began in 2014, long before
he was working as Trump's campaign manager. So the initial allegations, at least, appear to have involved potential crimes having
nothing to do with the Trump campaign. And most or all of the surveillance apparently took place before Mueller was even appointed
and was not at his direction.
Mueller's involvement now does suggest that the current focus relates to Manafort's role in the Trump campaign. But we don't know
exactly how, if at all, any alleged crimes by Manafort relate to his work in that role. And we don't know whether any other individuals
involved in the campaign are potentially implicated.
We also don't know what evidence was obtained as a result of the surveillance. The fact that warrants were issued does not mean
any evidence of criminal conduct was actually found.
The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times
reported
Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. Even if Mueller
were to indict Manafort for crimes not directly related to the Trump campaign, it would be a significant development. A typical
white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and
then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to
be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate.
Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know
many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly.
But news of the FISA surveillance is the latest evidence that Mueller's investigation is serious, aggressive and will be with
us for some time.
Randall D. Eliason teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School.
The neoliberal "the new class" to which Clintons belong like nomenklatura in the USSR are above the law.
Notable quotes:
"... After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced moments ago a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. ..."
"... Oh goody, Trey Gowdy doing another investigation. Isn't he 0 for many on his investigations. 0 as in zero, nada, nill, squat, zippo. He is another political empty suit with a bad haircut. ..."
"... Well said. The Clinton network leads to the real money in this game. Any real investigation would expose many of the primary players. It would also expose the network for what it is, that being a mechanism to scam both the American people and the people of the world. ..."
"... Perhaps a real investigation will now only be done from outside the system (as the U.S. political system seems utterly incapable of investigating or policing itself). ..."
"... You're probably right, but there's a chance this whole thing could go sidewise on Hillary in a hurry, Weinstein-style. ..."
"... We already know Honest Hill'rey's other IT guy (Bryan Pagliano) ignored subpoenas from congress...twice. ..."
"... Another classic case of "the Boy that cried wolf" for the Trumpettes to believe justice is coming to the Clintons. The House Judiciary and Oversight committees, will turn up nothing, apart from some procedural mistakes. A complete waste of time and tax payer money. Only the Goldfish will be happy over another charade. Killary is immune from normal laws. ..."
"... Potemkin Justice. Not a damn thing will come of it unless they find that one of Hillary's aides parked in a handicapped spot. ..."
"... The TV showed me Trump saying, "She's been through enough" and "They're good people" when referring to Hillary and Bill Clinton. ..."
"... Stopped reading at "they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status." ..."
Hillary's former IT consultant Paul Combetta who admitted to deleting Hillary's emails despite the existence of a Congressional
subpoena, it seems as though James Comey has just had his very own "oh shit" moment.
After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced moments ago a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation
into Hillary Clinton's private email server.
Among other things, Goodlatte and Gowdy said that the FBI must answer for why it chose to provide public updates in the Clinton
investigation but not in the Trump investigation and why the FBI decided to " appropriate full decision making in respect to charging
or not charging Secretary Clinton," a power typically left to the DOJ.
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or the
left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic
and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness. The law is the most equalizing
force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight.
"Decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016 have led to a host of outstanding questions that must be answered. These
include, but are not limited to:
FBI's decision to publicly announce the investigation into Secretary Clinton's handling of classified information but not
to publicly announce the investigation into campaign associates of then-candidate Donald Trump;
FBI's decision to notify Congress by formal letter of the status of the investigation both in October and November of 2016;
FBI's decision to appropriate full decision making in respect to charging or not charging Secretary Clinton to the FBI rather
than the DOJ;
FBI's timeline in respect to charging decisions.
'The Committees will review these decisions and others to better understand the reasoning behind how certain conclusions were
drawn. Congress has a constitutional duty to preserve the integrity of our justice system by ensuring transparency and accountability
of actions taken."
Of course, this comes just one day after
Comey revealed his secret Twitter account which led the internet to wildly speculate that he may be running for a political office...which,
these days, being under investigation by multiple Congressional committees might just mean he has a good shot.
Finally, we leave you with one artist's depiction of how the Comey 'investigation' of Hillary's email scandal played out...
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or
the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our
republic..."
Oh goody, Trey Gowdy doing another investigation. Isn't he 0 for many on his investigations. 0 as in zero, nada, nill,
squat, zippo. He is another political empty suit with a bad haircut.
It's nice publicity to hear that the Congress is "investigating". It's NOT nice to know that the DOJ is doing nothing. Probably
50 top level people at the FBI need to be fired as well as another 50 at DOJ to get the ball rolling toward a Grand Jury. Until
then, it's all eyewash and BULLSHIT!
Well said. The Clinton network leads to the real money in this game. Any real investigation would expose many of the primary
players. It would also expose the network for what it is, that being a mechanism to scam both the American people and the people
of the world.
Perhaps a real investigation will now only be done from outside the system (as the U.S. political system seems utterly
incapable of investigating or policing itself). Though in time all information will surface, as good players leak the info
of the bad players into the open. Which of course is why the corrupt players go after the leakers, as it is one key way they can
be taken down. Also remember that they need the good players in any organization to be used as cover (as those not in the know
can be used to work on legit projects). Once the good players catch on to the ruse and corruption it is, beyond a certain tipping
point, all over, as the leaked information goes from drop to flood. There will simply be no way to deny it.
You're probably right, but there's a chance this whole thing could go sidewise on Hillary in a hurry, Weinstein-style.
If the criminal stench surrounding her gets strong enough, the rats will begin to jump ship. People will stop taking orders
and doing her dirty work. She's wounded right now, if there was ever a time to finish her, it would be now. Where the fuck is
the big-talking Jeff Sessions? I think they got to him--he even LOOKS scared shitless.
It's just not possible to have any respect for these politician people.
We already know Honest Hill'rey's other IT guy (Bryan Pagliano) ignored subpoenas from congress...twice. Remember
Chaffetz "subpoenas are not suggestions"? Yeah, well they are. Chaffetz turned around and sent a letter about this to "attorney
general" jeff sessions and he's done exactly shit about about it. (Look it up, that's a true story)
Then we've got president maverick outsider simply ignoring Julian Assange and Wikileaks while he squeals daily about fake news.
Wikileaks has exposed more fraud than Congress ever has.
Sessions is the Attorney General. Give the man some credit. He recused himself from the Russia/Trump collusion, and this decision
may very well save the republic.
If Sessions was actively involved, half the nation would never accept the findings, no matter the outcome. With Sessions voluntarily
sidelined, the truth will eventually expose the criminal conspirators; all the way to the top.
Wikileaks and Assange have documented proof of criminal behavior from Obama, Lynch, Holder, Hillary, W. Bush, and more. This
will be the biggest scandal to hit the world stage. Ever.
lol Another classic case of "the Boy that cried wolf" for the Trumpettes to believe justice is coming to the Clintons.
The House Judiciary and Oversight committees, will turn up nothing, apart from some procedural mistakes. A complete waste of time
and tax payer money. Only the Goldfish will be happy over another charade. Killary is immune from normal laws.
Congress can't do shit without DOJ and FBI, which are both compromised and corrupt to the core.
That should have been Sessions' first order of business.
He can still get it rolling by firing Rosenstein and replacing him with someone that will do the job.They can strike down the
Comey immunity deals and arrest people for violating Congressional subpeona.
They can also assemble a Grand Jury to indict Rosenstein and Mueller for the Russian collusion conspiracy to commit Espionage
and Sabotage of our National Security resources. Half of Mueller's staff will then be indicted, along with Clinton, Obama, Lynch,
Holder, and Comey.
Replacement of Rosenstein is the crucial first step.
Is this CIA against Hillary Clinton. Did she cross some red line ? Why this revelation
happened now? What changed in deep state to allow such a revelation to surface.
Notable quotes:
"... Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier – which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election ..."
"... Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren't made public until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this would've provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would've been stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices. ..."
"... While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias - $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier. ..."
"... Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion. Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist his campaign for president. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Dunes has tried to compel Fusion's founders to disclose who paid for the dossier, but all three of them pled the fifth during public testimony last week. Nunes has also tried subpoenaing the firm's bank records. ..."
"... The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports ..."
Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton
campaign jointly financed the creation of the infamous "Trump dossier," which helped inspire
the launch of the floundering investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the
Russians.
Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy
Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier
– which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically
suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of
dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election.
Sound familiar?
Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren't made public
until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this
would've provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would've been
stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices.
While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the
Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias -
$5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance
records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since
Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier.
Fusion GPS's work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries when
an unidentified GOP donor reportedly hired the firm to dig into Trump's background. The
Republicans who were involved in the early stages of Fusion's efforts have not yet been
identified. Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump's Russia ties, but quickly realized
that those relationships would be a fruitful place to start,
WaPo reported.
Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was
primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion.
Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected
compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist
his campaign for president.
Fusion turned over Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, and it's unclear
how much of it he shared with the campaign.
The revelation about who funded the dossier comes just days after Trump tweeted that the FBI
and DOJ should publicly reveal who hired Fusion GPS. And lo and behold, that information has
now been made public.
Officials behind the now discredited "Dossier" plead the Fifth. Justice Department and/or
FBI should immediately release who paid for it.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Dunes has tried to compel Fusion's founders to
disclose who paid for the dossier, but all three of them pled the fifth during public testimony
last week. Nunes has also tried subpoenaing the firm's bank records.
The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may
never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering
intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele
was publicly identified in news reports. Officials also decided to withhold information from
the dossier in an intelligence community report published in January alleging that Russian
entities had tried to sway the US election on behalf of the Russian government.
Of course, we still don't know who leaked the dossier to Buzzfeed and CNN back in January.
John McCain – one of the primary suspects – has repeatedly denied it, and Fusion
GPS has said in court documents that it didn't share the document with Buzzfeed. However, we do
known that in early January, then-FBI Director James B. Comey presented a two-page summary of
Steele's dossier to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump.
It therefore strongly suggests that it was the FBI that was instrumental in spreading the
dossier to the media, most of which was too embarrassed to publish it until Buzzfeed came along
and did it... for the clicks.
So to summarize:
Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid to uncover and package dirt, whether factual or not, on
Trump which eventually found its way in the Trump dossier
In doing so, the Clintons and the DNC were effectively collaborating with "deep" sources,
both among the UK spy apparatus and inside Russia
Once Trump won, the FBI was instrumental in "leaking" the dossier to the mainstream media
and select still unknown recipients (the same way Comey "leaked" his personal notebooks just
a few months later, following his termination, to launch a probe of Trump).
The former head of the FBI who was supposed to probe Clinton's State Department - and the
Clinton Foundation - for a bribery and kickback scheme involving Russia's U.S. nuclear
business, is now investigating Trump for Russia collusion instead
But wait, it gets better: as Ken Vogel, formerly the chief investigative reporter at
Politico and currently at the NY Times just reported, " When I tried to report this story,
Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources)
are wrong."
When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back
vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong." https://t.co/B5BZwoaNhI
Another NYT reporter, Maggie Haberman, confirmed as much saying " Folks involved in
funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year ", and by folks she ultimately
means Hillary Clinton herself.
Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year https://t.co/vXKRV1wRJc
Which in light of the latest news suggests that Clinton was lying, which is not
surprising, especially when considering the recent "revelations" that the Clintons may
themselves have been involved in collusion with Russia over the infamous uranium deal.
Which brings us to the questionable role played by the FBI in all of this, and
ultimately, the role still being played by Robert Mueller. Here is the WSJ
,
Let's give plausible accounts of the known facts, then explain why demands that Robert
Mueller recuse himself from the Russia investigation may not be the fanciful partisan
grandstanding you imagine.
Here's a story consistent with what has been reported in the press -- how reliably
reported is uncertain. Democratic political opponents of Donald Trump financed a British
former spook who spread money among contacts in Russia, who in turn over drinks solicited
stories from their supposedly "connected" sources in Moscow. If these people were really
connected in any meaningful sense, then they made sure the stories they spun were
consistent with the interests of the regime, if not actually scripted by the regime. The
resulting Trump dossier then became a factor in Obama administration decisions to launch an
FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign , and after the election to
trumpet suspicions of Trump collusion with Russia.
We know of a second, possibly even more consequential way the FBI was effectively a
vehicle for Russian meddling in U.S. politics. Authoritative news reports say FBI chief
James Comey's intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter was prompted by a Russian
intelligence document that his colleagues suspected was a Russian plant.
OK, Mr. Mueller was a former close colleague and leader but no longer part of the FBI
when these events occurred. This may or may not make him a questionable person to lead a
Russia-meddling investigation in which the FBI's own actions are necessarily a concern. But
now we come to the Rosatom disclosures last week in The Hill, a newspaper that covers
Congress.
Here's another story as plausible as we can make it based on credible reporting. After
the Cold War, in its own interest, the U.S. wanted to build bridges to the Russian nuclear
establishment. The Putin government, for national or commercial purposes, agreed and sought
to expand its nuclear business in the U.S.
Ah yes, the Clinton's own Russia collusion narrative which recently emerged to the
surface and which as of today is
being investigated by the House :
The purchase and consolidation of certain assets were facilitated by Canadian
entrepreneurs who gave large sums to the Clinton Foundation, and perhaps arranged a Bill
Clinton speech in Moscow for $500,000. A key transaction had to be approved by Hillary
Clinton's State Department.
Now we learn that, before and during these transactions, the FBI had uncovered a bribery
and kickback scheme involving Russia's U.S. nuclear business, and also received reports of
Russian officials seeking to curry favor through donations to the Clinton Foundation
This criminal activity was apparently not disclosed to agencies vetting the 2010
transfer of U.S. commercial nuclear assets to Russia . The FBI made no move to break up the
scheme until long after the transaction closed. Only five years later, the Justice
Department, in 2015, disclosed a plea deal with the Russian perpetrator so quietly that its
significance was missed until The Hill reported on the FBI investigation last week.
As the WSJ correctly notes, " for anyone who cares to look, the real problem here is
that the FBI itself is so thoroughly implicated in the Russia meddling story ."
Which then shifts the focus to the person who was, and again is, in charge of it all:
former FBI director, and current special prosecutor Robert Mueller:
The agency, when Mr. Mueller headed it, soft-pedaled an investigation highly
embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton as well as the Obama Russia reset policy . More recently, if
just one of two things is true -- Russia sponsored the Trump Dossier, or Russian fake
intelligence prompted Mr. Comey's email intervention -- then Russian operations, via their
impact on the FBI, influenced and continue to influence our politics in a way far more
consequential than any Facebook ad, the preoccupation of John McCain, who apparently cannot
behold a mountain if there's a molehill anywhere nearby.
Which means that Mr. Mueller has the means, motive and opportunity to obfuscate and
distract from matters embarrassing to the FBI, while pleasing a large part of the political
spectrum. He need only confine his focus to the flimsy, disingenuous but popular (with the
media) accusation that the shambolic Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin.
Mr. Mueller's tenure may not have bridged the two investigations, but James Comey's, Rod
Rosenstein's , Andrew Weissmann's , and Andrew McCabe's did. Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mr.
Mueller as special counsel. Mr. Weissmann now serves on Mr. Mueller's team. Mr. McCabe
remains deputy FBI director. All were involved in the nuclear racketeering matter and the
Russia meddling matter.
The punchline: it's not the Clintons that should be looked at, at least not at first -
their time will come. It's the FBI:
By any normal evidentiary, probative or journalistic measure, the big story here is the
FBI -- its politicized handling of Russian matters, and not competently so. To put it
bluntly, whatever its hip-pocket rationales along the way, the FBI would not have so much
to cover up now if it had not helped give us Mrs. Clinton as Democratic nominee and then,
in all likelihood, inadvertently helped Mr. Trump to the presidency
We eagerly look forward to Trump's furious tweetstorm once he learns of all of this...
and how long before he fires Mueller, in this case with cause.
Another day, another scandal in Washington, DC. Simultaneous opening of inquires that are designed to hurt Hillary and Bill were
complete surprise.
Why now? There was some change on deep state level that is now reflected in this news. Suddenly Uranium 1 scandal comes into the
forfront. And along with Steele dossier it is damaging to Clinton. Were Clintons "Weinsteinalized"? Should be expect "50 women"
phenomena
to be replayed.
There is some storm hitting the US "deep state". The reasons for this storm remains hidden. But attempt of Clintons to preserve
their leadership in Democratic Party after Hillary fiasco in 2016 now are again became questionable.>
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - The Washington Post The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said. ..."
"... After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ..."
"... Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele ..."
Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - The Washington Post The Hillary Clinton campaign and
the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President
Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the
research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI
and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before
that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October 2016,
days before Election Day.
Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele compiled the dossier on President Trump's alleged ties to Russia. (Victoria
Jones/AP)
Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear
how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles
of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of
Fusion GPS's role.
Why they decided to resume investigation now ? What new facts were uncovered? What hidden storm
hit "deep state" so the for stability they need to sacrifice Hillary Clinton
How this correlates with the discovery that DNC paid for Steele dossier? Judging from
John Sipher a is
a former member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence Service attempt
to defend Steele dossier in his
Slate article (Sept, 2017), just a month before current revelations. As retied CIA agents
usually avoid public spotlight it might well be that he was "adviced" to write his
evaluation and, if this is the case, then CIA and may be personally Brennan were also involved
in "Steele dossier" fiasco.
Notable quotes:
"... The ousted FBI director James Comey and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general. ..."
"... Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS, the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia. A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without any legitimate purposes ..."
The Republican leaders of the House judiciary and oversight panels said in a statement they were
opening investigations into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation and the decision
not to prosecute her – the subject of hours-long congressional hearings last year.
The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, Devin Nunes, also announced a separate
investigation into a uranium deal brokered during Barack Obama's tenure as president.
The House judiciary committee chairman, Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, and the oversight committee
chairman, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, said the inquiry would be aimed at the
FBI and its decisions in the Clinton investigation . The ousted FBI director James Comey
and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation
last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general.
The two panels have declined to investigate Russia's interference in the 2016 elections, leaving
those inquiries to Senate committees and the House intelligence committee.
Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS,
the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia.
A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without
any legitimate purposes.
Looks like Atlantic honchos are really worrying at the possibility of the release of the JFK
assassination documents. I like the line "One, that the press is "the enemy of the American
people" working in cahoots with the deep state, and, two, by lending credibility to the idea that
the official story of JFK's assassination is indeed suspect."
Notable quotes:
"... The phrase "conspiracy theory" was invented by the CIA to cover up what they were doing. It shouldn't take much smarts to see that LHO was just a patsy. ..."
"... Here's a smarts question for you: did Bush try to launch a rightwing military coup in the USA, yes or no? ..."
"... I don't think there's any doubt that the CIA has and had assets in the media who did and do perpetuate disinformation and distraction. ..."
"... Of course they've tried to hide the fact, but the Church Committee hearings on the plots and assassinations and other criminal behavior by The Agency back in the 1950s and 1960s exposed all sorts of similar schemes. ..."
Trump tweeted Saturday morning,
"I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened."
Trump's announcement came a day after his longtime confidant Roger Stone went on
Infowars , a radio show and website known for spreading conspiracy theories, and
announced that Trump would not block the release of the documents, which are set to be issued
by the National Archives in the coming days. Earlier that day, Politico Magazine had published an in-depth piece saying that Trump would likely
block the release of the files.
Here's the thing that happens, apparently, when a conspiracy theorist becomes president of
the United States: The lines between decision and reaction blur. The American people are
accustomed to public officials spinning their way through public office. No president has been
truly forthcoming with the electorate. Many have misled the American people.
... ... ...
Regardless of the files, though, Trump's attention to them is a window into
how he wants to be seen. In one dashed-off tweet, Trump positions himself as doing something
noble -- advocating for transparency, against the warnings of the intelligence community --
while feeding at least two major conspiracies. One, that the press is "the enemy of the
American people" working in cahoots with the deep state, and, two, by lending credibility to
the idea that the official story of JFK's assassination is indeed suspect.
"The best conspiracy theories have all the trappings of a classic underdog story," wrote Rob
Brotherton in his book, Suspicious Minds . "We want to see top dogs taken down a peg;
we want the downtrodden underdog to triumph. And when it comes to conspiracy theories, unfair
disadvantage is par for the course
The best initial attitude to have is one of skepticism...not only of conspiracy theories
but of denials of conspiracy theories. Until, that is, definitive evidence is revealed. You
are a fool to believe in conspiracy theories without credible evidence You are also a fool
for denying them without evidence. The fact is that we know through credible records
including the CIA's own internal records that they have been involved with many conspiracies
with foreign militias, dictatorships, corporations, thugs, gangsters and assassins. You are a
damn fool not to take an allegation seriously and to blanket dismiss new allegations unless
proven false. In fact, the CIA had (has?) a campaign to discredit any criticism of its
policies as "conspiracy theory". Gaslighting is a common tool they have used against anyone
who dares critiques or questions them.
The phrase "conspiracy theory" was invented by the CIA to cover up what they were doing.
It shouldn't take much smarts to see that LHO was just a patsy.
Here's a smarts question for you: did Bush try to launch a rightwing military coup in the
USA, yes or no?
The files were due to be released on this day after 25 years. In 1992, after the movie JFK
came out, people were intrigued and wanted the files released. The president ordered them
sealed for another 25 years (Oct 2017) and President Trump happens to be President. He will
release the files, if no conspiracy there, we will FINALLY get the transparency we the people
have been asking for. Nothing more, nothing less.
How exactly will the files show there was "no conspiracy there"? Do you expect somehow the
files will erase the numerous eyewitness accounts of shots from in front of the
motorcade?
Not only that, but the Parkland doctors said JFK's wounds ran contrary to what the Warren
Report concluded. And the only doctor who saw both the assassination, the Parkland Hospital
work, and the Bethesda autopsy, Dr. Burkley, was never consulted by the Warren Commission,
and when asked later whether he thought shots may have hit Kennedy from more than one
direction, replied: "I don't care to comment on that."
Bugliosi was intellectually dishonest in his massive tome. He hid inconvenient facts in
order to push his agenda; i.e. that a lone gunman did all of the work alone. Serious scholars
like Newman and DiEugenio have revealed his omissions for all to see.
I can't say for sure how the Clintons did it, but we should recall that Bill met JFK in
1963 and used that opportunity to plant a miniature tracking device. Hillary, using one of
her witch spells, then met Bill earlier than officially recorded, and the two of them
recruited Oswald and Ruby, with the help of Soviet agents using Vince Foster as a temporal
go-between. Foster killed himself over his guilt in the assasination. They were desperate to
get Hillary elected to stop the release of the files, but of course they failed. Now we will
get another reason to lock her up. I have no proof but know this in my heart to be true.
They would have had to recruit Jack Ruby from organized crime --- see Who Was Jack Ruby?
by Scripps-Howard White House correspondent Seth Kantor for more on "the mob's front man when
they moved into Dallas."
Edit: Kantor was previously a reporter in Dallas-Ft. Worth and before that, a veteran of
Guadalcanal --- he played a key role in testifying that Jack Ruby, who he knew well, was at
Parkland Hospital while JFK was in Trauma Room One, which Ruby denied. The circumstances
indicate a strong possibility Ruby planted the so-called "Magic Bullet" on an unattended
stretcher.
The lame stream news media are forever searching for ways to attack Trump. You'd think he
would get some credit for releasing the 3,000 documents. But no, once again he has ulterior
motives.
I remember Walter Cronkite saying that it's difficult for people to come to the conclusion
that one man could have affected history to the extent that Oswald did.
That's a fine thought, but has nothing to do with an actual murder case in which Oswald is
supposed to have killed Patrolman Tippit and then President Kennedy, despite not one single
shred of concrete, credible evidence tying him to either of the weapons supposedly used. In
fact, even worse, the weapon or weapons used don't even consistently show up in the
chain-of-custody by the Dallas police, bullets don't match, wounds are seen by attending
physicians which had to be fired from the front, etc.
"How could Oswald shoot Kennedy in the front from the back?" is one reductio of the Warren
Commission fantasies, which is why they assiduously avoided calling scores of eyewitnesses of
the assassination to testify, and mucked up the autopsy evidence. I mean, their whole "case"
amounted to "Well, Oswald was a communist" (not correct) "who hated Kennedy" (wrong again!)
"and killed a policeman" (this is completely bogus, with key Tippit-killing witness Helen
Markham described by a WC attorney as a "crackpot" among other problems) and "Oswald was at
the Texas School Book Depository" (True, he worked there in a job arranged by Ruth Paine) "so
he must have shot JFK" ---
(Wrong, the eyewitness testimony --- see The Girl on the Stairs: My Search for a Missing
Witness to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by Barry Ernest, for example -- places him in
the "wrong place" to have shot anyone down in the motorcade from the sixth floor, and that's
just the first major problem, it would take too long to recount them all, as in HUNDREDS OF
PAGES, so that's just a few hints about what faces anyone investigating and/or reading about
the JFK assassination, as well as the murders of Tippit and Oswald, or Jack Ruby's extensive
ties as an organized crime factotum in Dallas and Cuba. Yes, Cuba.
Adrienne Lagrange, being the highly intellectual you try and portray. Why don't you see
that by writing this negative story about President Trump you not only make yourself sound
foolish, but you push neutral people to the President's side. Why do you think former
President Bush came out after 9 years of silence to condemn "conspiracy theorist" days before
President Trump announced the release of the JFK files? President Bush sr WAS involved with
the CIA in Texas during the JFK assasination in 1963. Obviously, he does not want the truth
to come out and so he got out in front of story to discredit what the files will show.
Corruption is common in the U.S Government, President Trump is dismantling this corruption a
little bit at a time. This is only the beginning.
What more do you need? The JFK literature is voluminous, and maybe you need to actually
try to read some of the key source material and critics and go from there.
Try reading Accessories after the Fact by Sylvia Meagher or On the Trail of the
Assassins by Jim Garrison, or Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. If you have the time
to deal with over 1200 pages about the JFK assassination, read Vincent Bugliosi's
Reclaiming History , and THEN read the ferocious debunkings of Bugliosi available
online.
N.B. Some of the most important discussions in Bugliosi's massive tome are in the
Endnotes, especially but not only "What the Parkland Doctors Saw." Conspiracy of
Silence by Parkland M.D. Dr. Charles Crenshaw is another useful text, as is Mafia
Kingfish by John Davis.
Ok: my honest opinion is that you can't summarize anything as complex as the planning,
execution, and subsequent coverup of the JFK assassination (including extensive use of media
assets for DECADES afterward) in anything short of a manuscript of hundreds of pages, and
many of the best work is already available, "just google it" ---but again, you have to be
willing to read those hundreds of pages with some sense of other background facts about the
Cold War and spy agencies.
This is one of the most intricate and far reaching events or set
of interconnected events in modern history --- just take a look at the "tags" on the front
page of kennedysandking.com and you'll see what I mean.
On the only occasion in which I had time in tutorials with Chomsky, I asked him first about
his views on the nexus of players at 544 Camp Street. That question and his answer might not
even make much sense to you without extensive background reading. Sorry, but that's just the
facts.
I truly understand your point regarding the complexity of the issue and I apologize for my
earlier comment.
I'm aware of the massive inconsistencies in the examination of his body, how it was
"handled", "magic bullets", and lots of other stuff I once knew but have forgotten. There's a
LOT of stuff, that's for sure.
I'm also very aware of how certain agencies (especially intel agencies) operate. Their
allegience to the truth is suspect at best.
I guess I was asking for was something like "It was basically an effort by (a list such
as... certain elements in the FBI/CIA/NSA/government... and/or foreign governments... and/or
the Mafia... or Cuba... or it was basically a coup driven by the MIC... (which I think it
was) or whatever combination it may be)." Basically the 100k foot view, a very simplistic
view. And I realize my opinion is not _nearly_ as informed as yours.
But that would certainly open up much noise from people like that moron I blocked earlier.
And certainly no one needs more of that....
I'll check out the links. Thanks.
By the way... I met Jim Marrs twice when I lived in Texas, actually around a campfire. It
was interesting meeting him, and he was a very interesting man regarding the JFK
assassination. I didn't know he passed, apparently quite recently.
I hope these documents get released and I hope they answer a lot of the open questions
still remaining.
JFK was murdered by the CIA.....he wanted to "to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces
and scatter it to the winds"......he fired Allen Dulles. Dulles was one of seven
commissioners of the Warren Commission to investigate the assassination of the U.S. President
John F. Kennedy..oh and he had no problem murdering people....
I don't believe a single word from a politician. They are professional liars. It's their
job to lie and spin webs of deception. I watch and judge them by their actions.
I couldn't care less what color orange TrumPutin wears. He declared war on corporate media
and that is good enough for me. I don't support him because of his position on Snowden but I
agree with him on many issues.
JFK was a naive fool. He moved against forces he did not fully understand. I don't blame
him for trying. He was a patriot.
Atantuc reasserting it's superior newsmaking capabilities with click-bait headlines,
unsupported assumptions and trolling. Well done. You fall below tabloid, yellow
journalism.
LOL---americans are little antagonistic children that prefer lies to truth...see comments
below! and are gullible enough to believe anything told them...who needs conspiracy theories
when people are so stupid...everyone in Europe understood that americans were idiots when
they accepted the impossible claim that 1 shooter killed JFK...and now they are more stupid
believing that 1 gambler shot 500 people in las vegas...a nation of dimwits
The American public had to wait TWELVE YEARS to see the Zapruder film of the
assassination, showing the effect of the kill shot from in front of the motorcade. But by the
time Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane had become a best seller a few years after the 26 volumes
of the Warren Commission's hearings and exhibits were published (with no index --- it was
left to United Nations-employed scientist Sylvia Meagher to assemble that, which spurred
critics of the WC fantasies and outright lies to expose the multiple flaws and fallacies in
the first "official investigation," i.e., the first attempted coverup) the credibility of the
Krazy Kid Oswald nonsense was already held in disrepute by informed observers.
The article above can't whitewash the mainstream media's role in the coverup, of course ---
search "Operation Mockingbird" or "Walter Sheridan and the Garrison investigation" or " Jim
Di Eugenio critique of Phil Shenon's JFK books" etc,
Any claims that the Soviets or Cubans did it have been thoroughly debunked. It was an
American domestic coup. If you believe the Warren Commission, I've got Indian treaties to
show you.
No one has presented evidence that there was another shooter. Clint Black, the secret
service agent at the scene adamantly say's no other gunshots from the grassy knoll
area. Simply no proof. As for the Vegas shooting as well.
I disagree with your faith-based following of Bugliosi. I think Dr. Cyril Wecht blows
Bugliosi out of the water, from a forensics standpoint.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
See the book Reclaiming Parkland for an extended dismantling of Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History, or just search "critical reviews of Bugliosi's JFK assassination book." It's an
embarrassment that Bugliosi wrote such fine books on the Simpson case and on the Supreme
Court's Bush v. Gore decision, but was apparently either blackmailed into writing obvious
lies or somehow convinced himself "no one with sufficient familiarity with the JFK
assassination in the requisite granular detail will ever read my book and expose my silly
attempts to distort the historical record." It took enormous chutzpah on his part to title
the book "Reclaiming History."
Search "Reclaiming History? Or Re-framing Oswald?" at
reclaiminghistory.org , which has links to a series of reviews of Bugliosi, none of which
you will ever see discussed on CNN or any other corporate mass media outlet. Instead, without
bothering to read the book much less deal with hundreds and hundreds of footnotes and
"Endnotes," some of bear on crucial points about the JFK assassination (such as "What the
Parkland Doctors Saw" ---see the Endnotes from 404-408} the corporate media is happy to
perpetuate as best they can the "one lone nut with no ties to the CIA killed two days later
by another lone nut with no relevant ties to the mob" confabulations.
"Reclaiming Parkland" is not one I've read, but I will. I don't think there's any doubt that the CIA has and had assets in the media who did and
do perpetuate disinformation and distraction.
Of course they've tried to hide the fact, but the Church Committee hearings on the plots
and assassinations and other criminal behavior by The Agency back in the 1950s and 1960s
exposed all sorts of similar schemes.
Search "MKUltra" and "Operation Artichoke" or just "The CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald" and you
can run across all sorts of interesting facts. not wild speculation, but facts, some of it
from CIA documents etc. etc.
Newman did his homework. He has combed through the declassified records and published his
findings on Oswald and the CIA, and on what really happened in Vietnam.
In my view the Miami and Chicago plans being aborted make the existence of multiple
shooters in Dallas-- such as Files -- more believable; the conspirators were simply not going
to miss another chance. Interestingly, Files himself says his superior told him the Dallas
plot was supposed to be called off, but they ignored the order.
Did you know that Gerald Posner, who wrote the definitive book concluding that Oswald
acted alone ("Case Closed"), is fully in favor of releasing the remainder of the documents --
in agreement with Pres. Trump's friend Roger Stone, who is a "conspiracy theorist"?
Did you know that the original "conspiracy theorist" -- the late Mark Lane -- was a
leftist and ardent supporter of JFK?
For the educated, this is about transparency, not ignorance.
Posner? Are you posting this as some kind of joke? Posner fabricated, altered, distorted
evidence on practically EVERY key point about the supposed role of Oswald, and totally
ignored all the revelations about Oswald's connections which exposed the role he played as an
intelligence agency asset.
Try reading some "critical reviews" of Case Closed, they are devastating and some are
maliciously funny, as well.
I was being sarcastic. I was pointing out that if a guy like Posner is in favor of
releasing the rest of the documents, it's a non-controversial issue.
I can promise you this; Vincent Buglioti wrote THEE masterpiece. Reclaiming history, The
JFK assassination. 1612 pages, twenty year's of research, and he embarrassed every other JFK
assassination writer' I've read Posner's book. Very well researched. But truthfully, it
cannot compare to Bugliotis " opus"
Get real --- Bugliosi has been thoroughly debunked. One of his favorite tricks is to
partially quote the FBI reports from Sibert and O'Neill out-of-context and ignore
contradictory witness testimony from witnesses (and there were dozens) not called to testify
before the Warren Commission. His book (and yes, I read ALL of it but with the advantage of
having ALSO read the WC report (the 26 volumes in large part, although not the part where
they had dental x-rays from Jack Ruby's mother --- I kid you not --- so much as the
inadvertently revelatory portions) as well as dozens and dozens of other books on the
assassination, so I could immediately spot some of Bugliosi's howlers) is considered
essentially a fraud on the public by informed critics of the JFK assassination.
"Conspiracy theories are a way to stand up, through disbelief, against the powerful. Those
who spread conspiracy theories in earnest are, whether they mean to or not, partaking in an
act of defiance against established institutions as much as they are questioning accepted
truths."
I disagree. Conspiracy theories are a way for the ignorant and stupid to delude themselves
that they are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Conspiracy theories provide a way of
feeling smart and shrewd without bothering with all that evidence and logic stuff.
Your comment makes no sense, since there are political assassinations like that of
Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy, for example, which have been both officially and
"unofficially" found to be the result of conspiracies. The House Select Committee on
Assassinations is one "official theory" that posits a conspiracy in the killing of President
Kennedy. You could also search "The Lincoln Conspiracy the book" and read that. In fact, you
don't have any idea at all about any of this, do you? You're just parroting some supposed
sage advice from the usual suspects.
"[L]ending credibility to the idea that the official story (sic) of JFK's assassination is
indeed suspect" is the incontrovertible fact that there are multiple "official stories," and
at least one of them posits the probability of a conspiracy behind JFK's assassination.
Since Oswald cannot even be tied to the supposed murder weapon by a credible
chain-of-evidence, nor placed in the so-called "sniper's nest" at the time shots rang out in
Dealey Plaza, nor be credibly rigged up as the killer of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit, it is
hardly surprising that anyone stuck trying to defend the relentlessly debunked Warren
Commission fantasies about the JFK-Tippit-Oswald murders is up against equally relentless
debunking right up to today.
A fact that the Democratic Party toadies try to push is that Trump does not tell the
truth.
He says things that are at variance with the claims the "press" try to toss at the people,
but that doesn't make them untrue.
The "press" was determined to tell people that the U.S.S. Maine was sunk by Spain, even
though it made no sense for them to be engage in aggressive actions that the New York Journal
claimed would then escalate into overt military action. If they felt that way, they would
have acted militarily from the start. Morons never questioned this and the U.S. easily
entered war with Spain. Even though the explosion on the Maine seems to have been the result
of a carelessly disposed of cigar.
Similarly with R.M.S. Lusitania. Imbeciles wouldn't ask why the Germans would engage in
something like murdering innocent civilians on an ocean liner if they wanted war. Why not
just carry out an invasion or declare war? Only now it's being admitted that Lusitania was
illegally carrying war supplies and ammunition from the U.S. to the Allies, making it a
legitimate target. Indeed, it is not necessarily proved that it actually carried civilian
passengers.
Similarly for the claims the the U.S. spied on the USSY with U-2 spy planes. The same with
the failure of the government and the "press" to admit the suspicious nature of claims of the
"Gulf of Tonkin Incident".
The fact is, Trump and others in the Republican Party have said many things that the
"press" denied, only to have the "press" shown to be lying later.
Hillary Clinton supporters were carrying out acts of violence after the election in
Trump's name to try to undermine him. Germany didn't pay its agreed upon amount for the
maintenance of NATO. Obama did bug Trump's campaign headquarters. Puerto Rico's sorry
condition is the result of massive corruption in its government. There are many women who, as
Trump asserted, will let a man with money and power take liberties. In fact, climate isn't
changing. "Climate" is the massive, interconnected, self regulating system comprised of
things like land, ocean, sky, solar energy, life. Land, ocean, solar energy, life are no
different from fifty years ago. Only the weather is changing, and that is caused by
chemtrails, the program of doping the air with weather modification chemicals from high
flying jets, producing long, non dissipating vapor lanes that stretch from horizon to horizon
and can last for an hour or more. Stop chemtrails and everything will return to normal.
Todd Akin was criticized for saying that, in "legitimate rape" women's bodies will fight
being impregnated. Democratic Party followers insisted Akin was saying rape was legal. He was
referring to rapes that actually occurred, not lies that many women do lodge against rich and
powerful men to get money.
J. Edgar Hoover said that "civil rights" marches and such were tools of the Kremlin to try
to undermine democracy. In their desperate attempt to rescue the claim that the Russians
interfered with the 2016 election, none other than The Atlantic has taken up Hoover's
insistence that such demonstrations were a means used by the USSR to try to destroy
democracy. And the dullards of the Democratic Party's target audience won't realize they are
now agreeing with the Republicans.
Trump and the politicians come from rarefied levels that know facts that government and
the "press" lies to the public about. One fact, that there may be actual sections of
government, or "government", that act independently of any rules and can even roll over the
rest of "government". "Government" is just a sleazy swindle to make the rich richer. No one
controls them! Not even elections! They publish fake "vote tallies", then put who they want
in. Trump speaks of the Deep State of power mongering going on behind the scenes. Hillary
Clinton operated her own shadow government with a system of unregistered servers only one of
which has been acknowledged. It's been suspected for a long time that the "intelligence
network" acted solely on its own recognizance, answerable to no one. Questions Trump raises
can point people to the truth.
"My" research? Look, just GO ONLINE to another website like
JFKfacts.org or kennedysand king.com
, or search "James Di Eugenio on the JFK assassination," I have read around 150 books and
articles and much of the Warren Report (the volumes not the summary) and the House Select
Committee hearings reports, but compared to "serious researchers" I am a dilletante. Besides,
you really NEED to study this either for yourself as a kind of "research project" or if
possible, in a university level course environment.
There are THOUSANDS of really interesting books about aspects of the JFK assassination ---
search "Reclaiming Parkland" by Di Eugenio and go from there, whatever.
Follow the links, and expect it to take many many hours to get the beginning of an
understanding.
Ok, why don't you at least realize it's FAR more complex than any possible "avionics
system," it's something akin to people on Quora asking me to "summarize Hamlet," or
"summarize King Lear." It's just absurd. Besides which, the subject matter is far too
important for anyone to take their views from a few summarized paragraphs, whether about
Hamlet or Lear or the JFK assassination.
So yeah, I did "research" and I think the facts speak for themselves, as you would learn by
delving into the posts at
jfkfacts.org or
kennedysandking.com , or reading Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. The thing is, it's one of
the most complicated interlocking sets of topics in modern history, not something that can be
scrawled on a postcard.
This is great comment: " One fairly obvious point -- in response to your original post, not
the article itself -- is surely that the general consensus which united conservatives and liberals,
that neoliberal economics works, that war against weak countries can be waged on the cheap, and that
the local working class will always eat whatever excrement is put on their plates, has started to break
down. "
Notable quotes:
"... The Reactionary Mind ..."
"... The Art of the Deal ..."
"... TRUMP IS BY NO MEANS the first man of the right to reach that conclusion about capitalism, though he may be the first President to do so, at least since Teddy Roosevelt. A great many neoconservatives found themselves stranded on the same beach after the end of the cold war, as had many conservatives before that. But they always found a redeeming vision in the state. Not the welfare state or the "nanny state," but the State of high politics, national greatness, imperial leadership, and war; the state of Churchill and Bismarck. Given the menace of Trump's rhetoric, his fetish for pomp and love of grandeur, this state, too, would seem the natural terminus of his predilections. As his adviser Steve Bannon has said, "A country's more than an economy. We're a civic society." Yet on closer inspection, Trump's vision of the state looks less like the State than the deals he's not sure add up to much. ..."
"... Trump_vs_deep_state's inconsistency, lack of coherence and cult of personality brings to mind Juan Peron and Evita. ..."
"... The desire to make Trump anti-Semitic, and a fascist is a lot easier than recognizing he's a talented media manipulator devoid and any real convictions. The idea that 60 million Americans voted to elect a man who secretly wants to end elections is absurd on every level. He doesn't need to end elections, because elections are the ultimate ratings game. He brags endlessly that he beat all the professional politicians as a neophyte. ..."
"... When folks assert that Trump is all about surfaces, they say that as if it's a bad thing. The republican base supporting Trump, we have clearly learned, maintains no fidelity to the theologies expounded at the NRO and the AEI. Trump's inability to think about challenges in ways approved of by his critics confounds experts precisely because he's so effective. I can't believe he has less heft and gravitas than the light-bulb salesman Americans elected twice. He is simply the right guy with the right message for a specific time and place. He may morph into evil personified and I get the sense at times that some of his critics are keen to see just that. ..."
"... That Trump lacks much knowledge of public policy was clear during the campaign, and since being inaugurated he has remained uninterested in and ignorant of (sometimes amazingly so) the details of policy. One wonders if he even reads the exec orders he has been signing. Your support of someone so manifestly unsuited to be president, by virtue of his vast ignorance if nothing else, was puzzling during the campaign and remains so. Btw, what "great society experiments" are you talking about? Have you heard of the '96 welfare 'reform' law? ..."
"... Trump has defended an isolationist foreign policy, attacking Nafta, Nato, the WTO etc. Given his erratic behavior, he has not followed through on this (yet?) but the departure with the previous mainstream consensus is radical. The mainstream left and right, at least since two decades, had been very much internationalist. ..."
"... During the campaign Trump has defended some form of social welfare state and more government intervention in the economy: e.g. his defense of Social Security, or even maternity leave, and his support for infrastructure. I do not think he really cares about this stuff and so he is probably not going to follow through. ..."
"... It's also very anti-historical. Inasmuch as conservatism is, among other things, a defense of hierarchy , it can (and did, at one time) appeal to millennia of precedent. ..."
"... Something can be deeply wrong, i.e. immoral, without being the product of a cognitive abnormality, and people can commit evil acts and hold evil beliefs without being mentally or psychologically impaired. To attribute all retrograde political acts and beliefs to an individual's deficient "theory of mind" (whatever that means exactly) is sociologically naive, psychologically untenable, and historically invalid. ..."
"... One fairly obvious point -- in response to your original post, not the article itself -- is surely that the general consensus which united conservatives and liberals, that neoliberal economics works, that war against weak countries can be waged on the cheap, and that the local working class will always eat whatever excrement is put on their plates, has started to break down. ..."
"... Trump is a right-wing bullshitter, Clinton is a liberal bullshitter; there's nothing really new about that (much the same sort of thing happened with those who continued to support the consensus during the Great Depression). ..."
"... When Obama failed to embody the forward-looking ideals he campaigned on, some people checked out, but you can trace clear lines of mass disillusionment and radicalization from 2008 to Occupy and BLM to the Sanders campaign. ..."
"... The question was never if there was an appetite for real leftism in the American electorate (Clinton and Trump's unconvincing plagiarism of Sanders talking points are telling here, I think), but whether the Democratic party, mired as it's been in institutional rot and complacency, would ever tolerate true economic leftism when the "social liberalism" of identity and representation seemed to work well enough and was so much less threatening to the moneyed interests that financed the party's rightward swing. ..."
"... For decades, the left wing of the Democratic party has been cajoled into voting for "liberal" candidates that resemble nothing so much as the old aristocratic Whigs who used to discuss ways to help the less fortunate over claret and cigars down at the gentlemen's club. ..."
"... I don't think there's any going back to the neocon/neolib era and I think even a lot of moderate Republicans (who used to rely on friendly financiers like Romney to keep the rabid right on-leash) are beginning to realize it. After all, what's the point of selling out if it doesn't buy you anything? ..."
"... The neo-cons are out: Bill Kristol, Max Boot and company are sworn enemies of the administration. Democratic party neocons like HRC can longer launch democracy-building projects in the middle east. Long may this continue. ..."
"... Calling 60 million Trump voters racist and/or fascist might feel good, but as Mark Lilla sensibly observes, identity politics is Reagan's trickle-down economics for liberals, self-delusion for folks out of answers. The 'solutions' for poor, black families in crisis on this thread illustrate clearly why so many black voters in Michigan and elsewhere stayed home. Folks without work, safe schools, and much hope want solutions – not 'this study says' or 'but, Republicans.'' ..."
"... Donald Trump is president because the Democratic party abandoned the poorest, white and black, not because 60 million Americans are actually fascists. ..."
"... It's the sort of completely insane projection that falls apart at the most cursory examination, to wit: the entire notion of destroying a public, universal service like secondary (and post-secondary, in many cases) education in order to hand the system over to unscrupulous profiteers is [extremely Zizek voice]PURE NEOLIBERALISM[/extremely Zizek voice]. ..."
"... What we have, and what Trump_vs_deep_state is merely one symptom of, is a massive crisis in public governance. In large part, the people who are responsible for said governance brought it on themselves. ..."
"... Race is one the primary axes of American politics, and our reluctance to fund basic public goods cannot be understood without acknowledging this basic fact. ..."
"... there's absolutely no daylight whatsoever between "mainstream" Republicans and Trump when it comes to the lust for war: ..."
"... Having discovered this fact which so many slogans obscure, we might well wonder whether it is quite correct to look upon capitalism as a social form sui generis or, in fact, as anything else but the last stage of the decomposition of what we have called feudalism. ..."
"... The thing is, Trump is an owner who's there because he's finished with that political crap. At this point, we probably have to hope that some general has the spine to tell Trump no, the US army really is not a very good military force for anything that involves taking casualties, which means it is fairly useless for actually conquering anything, as opposed to laying waste in endless campaigns. But the spirit of West Point, the school of treason that produced many, many, many more fighters against America than the CPUSA ever did, still rules. I'm not very hopeful. ..."
"... This is a legitimacy crisis. It is not as if Clinton partisans did not call Trump's electoral legitimacy into question. Half the country think Russian "meddling" determined the result, when it is not clear any "meddling" happened. ..."
"... Yes, Americans have lost their collective mind, politically. I know several elderly people (not much more elderly than me, truth to tell) who consume anti-Trump screeds from Seth Meyers or Rachel Maddow on a daily basis. It is entertainment I suppose, but it does not inform them or improve their critical thinking skills. One, a transplanted Englishman, described Maddow to me the other day as "erudite". ..."
"... The relentless flood tide of propaganda in American politics makes it exceedingly hard to talk with any American realistically about what is going on, because so much of what is going is exists not as objective and verified facts, but as shared, tendentious narratives. The actual Trump seems to me to be a bit of a personal mess and an authoritarian in the same mode as the blowhards who hang out at the barbershop; the Trump constructed by, say, Maddow's televised narratives is something else, something more imagined than real. The imagined Trump has to be bigger, to be fitted with cheap hyperbole. ..."
"... An essential element of the propaganda narrative is the "distance" to the other. The "base of Trump supporters" is a prop. Wondering what "they" could be thinking but not waiting for an answer before launching scorn and ridicule on the way to slander is a method. ..."
"... No Layman, there is plenty of irrefutable evidence that Clinton is a militarist who strongly believes in force and the threat of force, especially when it comes to the ME – and this plays just fine with the Democratic party establishment, actually it's a necessity considering the donor base. Clinton's stance towards Iran and the nuclear deal is a matter of record. Next time don't nominate a warmonger who voted for the Iraq war if you want to prevent someone like Trump – and hey, maybe young people will trust you again. ..."
"... There is no "real" Trump narrative; narratives are imagined stories, constructed according to principles of dramatic art to create meaning and morality. With effort, it is possible to anchor a narrative to facts, and to do so by methods that limit violence to the objectivity of facts. Whether a well-anchored narrative is persuasive may be important to such enterprises as the operation of law or even the progress of science. ..."
"... Our famously free press (spoken sarcastically) is thought to provide a check; fact-check columns proliferate at times, but mostly prove how weak an instrument of the public interest, a Media run by massive corporations and financially dependent on corporate business advertising is. ..."
"... A common practice now is to lead with counterfactuals: narratives in which the place of facts is taken by theory and theory's constructions. "Because the whole thing is basically a fantasy, nothing will disprove it." ..."
"... My political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state is that this is what conservative politics unchecked, unopposed and not responsible to any mass constituency produces. Trump says anything. But, it has been twenty years since anyone in politics has been held to account for anything said, except for "gotcha" moments of mostly fake outrage. Not that we would have a gotcha moment for Bush's war crimes. But that is my point. Holding Clinton up as a standard of normalcy in politics runs into exactly this same problem: she talks in the political code words, takes no responsibility for policy consequences and shows every sign of greed and irresponsibility, but the counterfactual of her normalcy is still set forward, with no awareness that it is a groundless narrative. This is not a point about Clinton or Trump, but it is a point about a political process that produces a lot of stupid and Trump is a bonus. ..."
"... Through the book, he traces the many potential problems that the 'personalization' of media might bring. Most germane to this discussion, he raised the point that if every one of the billion News Feeds is different, how can anyone understand what other people are seeing and responding to? 'The most serious political problem posed by filter bubbles is that they make it increasingly difficult to have a public argument.' " ..."
"... I stand by my belief that Trump built a public persona as a race-baiting, loudmouth buffoon that carried him straight into the WH despite a fervent, well-funded bi-partisan effort to unseat him from the time he declared up right to the present. Studying the buffoon tells us practically nothing about the individual. He's ordinary, capable, ambitious, avaricious, and mired in the world of the senses rather than the mind. There are worse traits and places to be. ..."
"... what I always find grotesque about the accusations of Russian meddling is the full ticket obliviousness to all the meddling the US used to perform in Russian elections, and in fact in many other elections worldwide. It's quite a sorry sight to see people like you make a fuss about very minor activities (if there's even evidence of any), without as much as a shred of self awareness. ..."
"... If people want a sane non- militaristic foreign policy it's going to take more than just opposition to Trump. You are also going to have to oppose some of Trump's opponents in both parties. The one time Trump received positive feedback and praise from many in the Beltway was when he bombed Syria. ..."
"... Why are people talking about Hillary here, on a thread about Trump and conservatism? Because a plausible argument can be made that Hillary is more of conservative than Trump, at least in terms of neo-conservative politics. She has, after all, two neo-con wars under her belt already and enjoys good relations with all the really wrong people. Her avarice and willingness to tell tales are at least comparable to Trump's. But perhaps the best reason Hillary belongs here is because many believe that had a less conservative Democrat than Hillary run (Bernie, for example), Dems would have won and Donald Trump would be yesterday's news. ..."
October 12, 2017 The magazine n+1 is running an
excerpt
from the second edition of The Reactionary Mind , which comes out next week but is
available for purchase now . The n+1 piece is titled "The Triumph of the Shill: The
political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state." It's my most considered reflection on what Trump_vs_deep_state represents, based
on a close reading of The Art of the Deal (yes, I know he didn't write it, but it's far
more revelatory of the man and what he thinks than even its ghostwriter realized) and some of his
other writings and speeches, as well as the record of Trump's first six months in office.
Here are some excerpts from the excerpt, but I hope you'll buy the book, too. It's got a lot of
new material, particularly about the economic ideas of the right. And a long, long chapter on Trump
and Trump_vs_deep_state.
... ... ...
This is what makes Trump's economic philosophy, such as it is, so peculiar and of its moment.
An older generation of economic Darwinists, from William Graham Sumner to Ayn Rand, believed without
reservation in the secular miracle of the market. It wasn't just the contest that was glorious;
the outcome was, too. That conviction burned in them like a holy fire. Trump, by contrast, subscribes
and unsubscribes to that vision. The market is a moment of truth -- and an eternity of lies.
It reveals; it hides. It is everything; it is nothing. Rand grounded her vision of capitalism
in A is A; Trump grounds his in A is not A.
TRUMP IS BY NO MEANS the first man of the right to reach that conclusion about capitalism,
though he may be the first President to do so, at least since Teddy Roosevelt. A great many neoconservatives
found themselves stranded on the same beach after the end of the cold war, as had many conservatives
before that. But they always found a redeeming vision in the state. Not the welfare state or the
"nanny state," but the State of high politics, national greatness, imperial leadership, and war;
the state of Churchill and Bismarck. Given the menace of Trump's rhetoric, his fetish for pomp
and love of grandeur, this state, too, would seem the natural terminus of his predilections. As
his adviser Steve Bannon has said, "A country's more than an economy. We're a civic society."
Yet on closer inspection, Trump's vision of the state looks less like the State than the deals
he's not sure add up to much.
I'll be doing a bunch of interviews about the book, including one with our very own Henry, so
keep an eye out at my blog for more information
on that.
Dr. Hilarius 10.12.17 at 4:54 am (no link)
Trump_vs_deep_state's inconsistency, lack of coherence and cult of personality brings to mind Juan Peron
and Evita.
kidneystones 10.12.17 at 2:19 pm (no link)
@12 The desire to make Trump anti-Semitic, and a fascist is a lot easier than recognizing
he's a talented media manipulator devoid and any real convictions. The idea that 60 million Americans
voted to elect a man who secretly wants to end elections is absurd on every level. He doesn't
need to end elections, because elections are the ultimate ratings game. He brags endlessly that
he beat all the professional politicians as a neophyte.
He looks certain at this point to thread the needle for 2020 at the expense of both Republicans
and Democrats. He may very well simplify the tax code and get rather more done in his second year
in office. His first year has and will be devoted to pure survival – defending his corner and
maintaining his base. Trump supporters, myself included, are anti-politician, and unsympathetic
to faction and ideology, which is part of the reason I really do question Corey's efforts to make
Trump part of a conservative movement.
When folks assert that Trump is all about surfaces, they say that as if it's a bad thing.
The republican base supporting Trump, we have clearly learned, maintains no fidelity to the theologies
expounded at the NRO and the AEI. Trump's inability to think about challenges in ways approved
of by his critics confounds experts precisely because he's so effective. I can't believe he has
less heft and gravitas than the light-bulb salesman Americans elected twice. He is simply the
right guy with the right message for a specific time and place. He may morph into evil personified
and I get the sense at times that some of his critics are keen to see just that.
Every time Hillary Clinton opens her mouth to utter another blatant falsehood, I feel better
about the results of 2016. There is, as Corey notes, an emptiness at the heart of the conservative
movement. The same can be said of liberals who are, if anything, in even greater disarray than
conservatives. The great society experiments yield, in 2016, appalling failure rates among America's
African-American youth to follow decades of failure as the African-American family unit dis-integrates.
Liberals are all out of answers, as are theological conservatives. Perhaps the reality is that
ordinary Americans, and others across the globe, are actually far less polarized than the pundits
tell us.
We might very well go down some ugly path to war and disaster, but is seems to me just as likely
that life will actually go on much as it has, only with fewer wars and slightly more charity towards
each other. Cause just yammering about the blah-blah-blah is getting mighty old.
LFC 10.12.17 at 5:03 pm (no link)
kidneystones @15 That Trump lacks much knowledge of public policy was clear during the campaign, and since
being inaugurated he has remained uninterested in and ignorant of (sometimes amazingly so) the
details of policy. One wonders if he even reads the exec orders he has been signing. Your support
of someone so manifestly unsuited to be president, by virtue of his vast ignorance if nothing
else, was puzzling during the campaign and remains so. Btw, what "great society experiments" are
you talking about? Have you heard of the '96 welfare 'reform' law?
LFC 10.12.17 at 5:10 pm (no link)
p.s. In terms of ignorant presidents in recent memory, Reagan and G.W. Bush come close to Trump,
but Trump outdoes them. (Though in a competition on that score between Reagan and Trump, it might
be close to a tie.)
As far as I can tell, your claim so far (in this and other posts) is that Trump should be seen
first of all as a conservative: those who see him as a radical break from US conservatism have
an idealized version of what the GOP and the right have actually been throughout their history.*
I tend to agree with this (e.g. the GOP has been very racist since many decades) but with two
important qualifications that I have never seen you make:
a) Trump has defended an isolationist foreign policy, attacking Nafta, Nato, the WTO etc.
Given his erratic behavior, he has not followed through on this (yet?) but the departure with
the previous mainstream consensus is radical. The mainstream left and right, at least since two
decades, had been very much internationalist.
b) During the campaign Trump has defended some form of social welfare state and more government
intervention in the economy: e.g. his defense of Social Security, or even maternity leave, and
his support for infrastructure. I do not think he really cares about this stuff and so he is probably
not going to follow through. Given his general cluelessness, he is also captured by the various
randians who populate the GOP ranks. But, differently from many politicians on the right, in primis
the randians, Trump has some sense for what people want. And in the campaign he said it, possibly
opening up the field for future Keynesians republicans.
*You hedge this view a bit in this post, by considering Trump's view of the market.
Collin Street thinks that conservatism is some kind of organic affliction, that conservatives
all have something wrong with their brain chemistry or biology, that they are all cognitively
abnormal. This is absurd.
It's also very anti-historical. Inasmuch as conservatism is, among other things, a defense
of hierarchy , it can (and did, at one time) appeal to millennia of precedent. Were the believers
in the divine right of monarchs mentally abnormal? Were those who believed (and continue to believe)
that employers have a right to exploit their workers mentally ill? Were, to take an even starker
example, proponents of slavery psychologically impaired? If so, how to account for the fact that
slavery was close to universal among human societies until fairly recently in the history of the
species? Were the vast majority of humans all psychologically impaired until some date of enlightenment
(pick your date or century)?
Something can be deeply wrong, i.e. immoral, without being the product of a cognitive abnormality,
and people can commit evil acts and hold evil beliefs without being mentally or psychologically
impaired. To attribute all retrograde political acts and beliefs to an individual's deficient
"theory of mind" (whatever that means exactly) is sociologically naive, psychologically untenable,
and historically invalid.
One fairly obvious point -- in response to your original post, not the article itself -- is
surely that the general consensus which united conservatives and liberals, that neoliberal economics
works, that war against weak countries can be waged on the cheap, and that the local working class
will always eat whatever excrement is put on their plates, has started to break down.
The alternatives seem to be to change the consensus, or spread bullshit that the consensus
is OK but just needs to be tweaked a bit. Trump is a right-wing bullshitter, Clinton is a
liberal bullshitter; there's nothing really new about that (much the same sort of thing happened
with those who continued to support the consensus during the Great Depression).
This excerpt seems to take a fairly dim view of the left and what it's had to offer in recent
years, and I can't say I really disagree, but I think Corey is underestimating the extent to which
a leftist resurgence is already underway. I still think 2008 was a turning point, not because
Obama himself really represented a new view of American liberalism (frankly, I think a hypothetical
Gore or Kerry administration would have been extremely similar to what we got from Obama), but
because the energy people invested in Obama's vision of America has never really dissipated. I
think liberals are liberals in large part because they prefer futurism to nostalgia, so it shouldn't
have been surprising that the candidate of "hope and change" beat a candidate whose political
persona is frozen in the mid-90s.
When Obama failed to embody the forward-looking ideals he campaigned on, some people checked
out, but you can trace clear lines of mass disillusionment and radicalization from 2008 to Occupy
and BLM to the Sanders campaign.
The question was never if there was an appetite for real leftism in the American electorate
(Clinton and Trump's unconvincing plagiarism of Sanders talking points are telling here, I think),
but whether the Democratic party, mired as it's been in institutional rot and complacency, would
ever tolerate true economic leftism when the "social liberalism" of identity and representation
seemed to work well enough and was so much less threatening to the moneyed interests that financed
the party's rightward swing.
For decades, the left wing of the Democratic party has been cajoled into voting for "liberal"
candidates that resemble nothing so much as the old aristocratic Whigs who used to discuss ways
to help the less fortunate over claret and cigars down at the gentlemen's club. We put up
with it because we were told that was the only way to keep Republican robber barons from reinstating
white male supremacy, criminalizing poverty, and declaring war on human decency. Trump was the
embodiment of that venal reactionary bogeyman and Clinton was supposed to be the bullwark of reason
and common sense -- the "electable" candidate -- that kept the far right at bay. George W. Bush
was a decent-seeming guy whose dad was president. Losing to him was tolerable if frustrating,
but Clinton losing feels like a broken promise, like the deal with the devil we made back in '92
is now null and void and it's time for something new.
I don't think there's any going back to the neocon/neolib era and I think even a lot of
moderate Republicans (who used to rely on friendly financiers like Romney to keep the rabid right
on-leash) are beginning to realize it. After all, what's the point of selling out if it doesn't
buy you anything?
"We came, we saw, he died – ha-ha-ha" is not president, and African-Americans are no longer
chained to the ineffective policies of the Democratic party and teachers unions. The neo-cons
are out: Bill Kristol, Max Boot and company are sworn enemies of the administration. Democratic
party neocons like HRC can longer launch democracy-building projects in the middle east. Long
may this continue.
A sociopath can be very good at reading and manipulating others. Having a theory of mind
is quite distinct from having empathy, and having empathy is quite distinct from using it pervasively
to guide personal/social/political life.
There's a few simple tricks, is the only word that works, I think, that you can do without
needing any insight into how people work. Stuff like being silent and letting people run their
mouth out, or being vague so that you can redefine what you meant post-facto and claiming success,
or the gish-gallop technique or a few other rhetorical tricks that can be used to confuse/blindside
people in various ways.
Power-sales techniques and what-have-you.
"Tricks", because if they work they work by mechanical rule-following and if people know enough
to recognise them they don't work at all. You don't need particular insight to use any of these,
you just need an audience that doesn't recognise them and isn't told about them. A lot
of the communication ones, in particular, rely on abuse of normal discourse structures/pragmatics,
which means that they're actually things that people with autism-spectrum conditions -- that severely
disrupt normal pragmatic structures -- might stumble into by, literally, accident.
With a drive to succeed and a handful of these tricks you can -- with luck, and we only hear
about the successes: there's an old technique for building a reputation that starts by sending
out 1024 letters that A will happen, and another 1024 saying the exact opposite -- build a small
fortune. But if you run into more-experienced players who can recognise the tricks you're using,
then you're not going to succeed against them, and it might go badly for you. Or they might give
you a half-million in fuck-off money just to get you out of their way, and you'd probably think
yourself awesome for getting it.
But since I haven't read a lot of Burke I need to decide, provisionally, whether to go with
the view that e.g. Reflections on the Revolution in France is a manifestation of "autism" or whether
to go with the view that it's a statement and elaboration of the author's political convictions.
I can't exactly see how the two descriptions you've provided are incompatible; can you explain
why you feel you need to decide, why do you feel that they can't both be true?
Calling 60 million Trump voters racist and/or fascist might feel good, but as Mark Lilla
sensibly observes, identity politics is Reagan's trickle-down economics for liberals, self-delusion
for folks out of answers. The 'solutions' for poor, black families in crisis on this thread illustrate
clearly why so many black voters in Michigan and elsewhere stayed home. Folks without work, safe
schools, and much hope want solutions – not 'this study says' or 'but, Republicans.''
America's cities are under Democratic control, for the most part, and the studies, the plans,
and the programs, and the teachers' unions haven't got the job done, unless creating a cycle of
failure and illiteracy qualifies as some form of progress, or success.
Donald Trump is president because the Democratic party abandoned the poorest, white and
black, not because 60 million Americans are actually fascists.
If Democrats can't provide solutions for ordinary people at the state, local and national level
the party is going to continue to keep losing elections.
"Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a
version of Conservatism". Orwell in his review of "Mein Kampf".
Ah, there it is, the good shit, the barely-warmed-over Manhattan Institute talking points that
the conservative lie machine has been pushing for ages.
It's the sort of completely insane projection that falls apart at the most cursory examination,
to wit: the entire notion of destroying a public, universal service like secondary (and post-secondary,
in many cases) education in order to hand the system over to unscrupulous profiteers is [extremely
Zizek voice]PURE NEOLIBERALISM[/extremely Zizek voice].
It is exactly the kind of short-sighted maneuver that Democrats have been pulling for decades
now, trying to get "moderate" Republicans in the suburbs to vote for them, and its only effect
has been to undermine the concept of public education entirely. Some of the most vigorous advocates
of charter schools and union-busting have been Democrats, for fuck's sake! A nonexhaustive list:
Joel Klein, Arne Duncan, Rahm Emmanuel, and these are just the first three I could think of off
the top of my head; I guarantee that I could find you an list as long as your arm if I tried.
Top Democratic donors such as those from Silicon Valley and Wall Street are gung-ho about charter
schools and other similar scams like "online education." In the meantime, the actual research
shows that at best, charter schools are a wash in terms of performance and at worst they are basically
a fraud perpetrated upon both taxpayers and students in order to shovel money to people like DeVos.
What we have, and what Trump_vs_deep_state is merely one symptom of, is a massive crisis in public
governance. In large part, the people who are responsible for said governance brought it on themselves.
On the right-wing side, a propaganda machine has existed since the 1950s to sell people various
poisonous ideas (regulation is bad! the "free market" is good!) dressed up, in the best of times,
in quasi-academic language, and in the worst of times as just plain racism. The retreat from public
services that took place in the South once those services would have to be integrated is a great
tell; wealthy Virginians literally closed the entire state's public school system rather
than have to attend school with black children. On the center-left, the entire New Democrat generation
drank the idiot Kool-Aid that demanded we turn over anything and everything to market forces but!
with a slightly more advanced degree of wokeness. Meanwhile, in Chicago, the CTU, under a predominantly
black and Latino leadership, has been
at the forefront (PDF) of fighting privatization and the attendant segregation that follows
it, demanding resources from the austerity-mad Emmanuel administration so they can actually do
their jobs. Said fight, I should add, taking place with the support of the predominantly African-American
communities that are currently being brutalized by Rahm, so maybe if you care about black agency
as much as you claim you do (hahahaha) you might take that into account.
The Democratic party has not been nearly as good to the African-American community as the latter's
loyalty to the former (or, really, as basic justice) would seem to require, but the failure has
not been "too much Great Society programs" or "too many unionized teachers." That's tendentious,
ahistorical horseshit. The real failure has been the Democratic willingness to cast its most solid
coalition partner again and again into a racist market system in which they have to fight uphill
battles every step of the way. That Democrats are still a preferable alternative to the open eliminationism
of Trump supporters is not particularly to their credit, not when entire Democratic administrations
have failed to protect African-Americans from predatory lending or housing and workplace discrimination
or being killed by police officers or even do so much as keep them from being forced to drink
lead-tainted water.
Race is one the primary axes of American politics, and our reluctance to fund basic public
goods cannot be understood without acknowledging this basic fact. Lots of white people, but
especially the petit bourgeoisie that constitutes the core of Republican voters (who are, shock
of shocks, also the core of Trump voters), would rather eat dirt if it means that a black person
somewhere will have to eat shit, and unfortunately for all of us, the idiotic electoral system
we inherited from the slavers played to their advantage in this electoral cycle. Now Trump is
going to decertify the Iran deal so go take your "hurrrr neocons out" nonsense and shove it up
your ass, because all the same fucking lunatics who want to turn the Middle East into glass are
still in charge everywhere and a literally demented person holds the nuclear codes because showing
the libs whatfor is the only ideal that white middle America is even capable of processing anymore.
JRLRC 61 Thanks for some historical perspective. Reading this thread makes me give up hope for
the American Republic. Your leader misses no opportunity to exhibit contempt for democracy, contempt
for the rule of law, contempt for international treaty obligations, contempt for the UN world
order, contempt for diplomacy, contempt for truth, contempt for science, a guy who in real time
threatens to start a nuclear world war (remember CR wrote a whole post dismissing the idea that
Trump was reckless), and you people explain him away as just another conservative? Have you really
no sense of history? Frankly you must be out of your minds.
"We have seen that the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of
production by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility
for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source
of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on This
social function is already losing importance and is bound to lose it at an accelerating rate in
the future even if the economic process itself of which entrepreneurship was the prime mover went
on unabated. economic progress tends to become depersonalized and automatized. (p.132)
"Of old, roughly up to and including the Napoleonic Wars, generalship meant leadership and
success meant the personal success of the man in command who earned corresponding "profits" in
terms of social prestige This is no longer so. Rationalized and specialized office work will eventually
blot out personality, the calculable result, the "vision." The leading man no longer has the opportunity
to fling himself into the fray. He is becoming just another office worker -- and one who is not
always difficult to replace. in the last analysis the same social process -- undermines the role
and, along with the role, the social position of the capitalist entrepreneur. His role, though
less glamorous than that of medieval warlords, great or small, also is or was just another form
of individual leadership acting by virtue of personal force and personal responsibility for success
(p.133)
" contrasting the figure of the industrialist or merchant with that of the medieval lord. The
latter's "profession" not only qualified him admirably for the defense of his own class interest
-- he was not only able to fight for it physically -- but it also cast a halo around him and made
of him a ruler of men Of the industrialist and merchant the opposite is true. There is surely
no trace of any mystic glamour about him which is what counts in the ruling of men. The stock
exchange is a poor substitute for the Holy Grail. We have seen that the industrialist and merchant,
as far as they are entrepreneurs, also fill a function of leadership. But economic leadership
of this type does not readily expand, like the medieval lord's military leadership, into the leadership
of nations. On the contrary, the ledger and the cost calculation absorb and confine He can only
use rationalist and unheroic means to defend his position or to bend a nation to his will. He
can impress by what people may expect from his economic performance, he can argue his case, he
can promise to pay out money or threaten to withhold it, he can hire the treacherous services
of a condottiere or politician or journalist. But that is all and all of it is greatly overrated
as to its political value the bourgeois class is ill equipped to face the problems, both domestic
and international, that have normally to be faced by a country of any importance. (pp.137-8)
" capitalist policies wrought destruction much beyond what was unavoidable. They attacked the
artisan in reservations in which he could have survived for an indefinite time. They forced upon
the peasant all the blessings of early liberalism -- the free and unsheltered holding and all
the individualist rope he needed in order to hang himself In breaking down the pre-capitalist
framework of society, capitalism thus broke not only barriers that impeded its progress but also
flying buttresses that prevented its collapse. That process, impressive in its relentless necessity,
was not merely a matter of removing institutional deadwood, but of removing partners of the capitalist
stratum, symbiosis with whom was an essential element of the capitalist schema. Having discovered
this fact which so many slogans obscure, we might well wonder whether it is quite correct to look
upon capitalism as a social form sui generis or, in fact, as anything else but the last stage
of the decomposition of what we have called feudalism." (p.139)
Schumpeter, from Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, ch. 7
Jerry Vinokurov@71 writes "there's absolutely no daylight whatsoever between 'mainstream' Republicans
and Trump when it comes to the lust for war "
This is overly optimistic in a way, yet overly pessimistic in another. For the first, there's
no daylight between Trump and "mainstream" Democrats when it comes to a lust for war.
For the second? It's clear both parties would support Trump if he ordered a decapitation strike
on North Korea, and it's likely both parties would support Trump if it failed and turned into
an all-out conflagration, no matter the fallout. But, the last president apt to such unilateral
war-making was Richard Nixon, and he was impeached for also discarding the two-party deal (a no
no on par with a Mexican President taking a second term.) Before the fact, however, there are
straws in the wind about impeachment, from the Washington Post op-ed, columnists Rubin and Waldman,
and "rumors" reported in Vanity Fair. Not a bright prospect, to be sure, no daylight at all?
The thing is, Trump is an owner who's there because he's finished with that political crap.
At this point, we probably have to hope that some general has the spine to tell Trump no, the
US army really is not a very good military force for anything that involves taking casualties,
which means it is fairly useless for actually conquering anything, as opposed to laying waste
in endless campaigns. But the spirit of West Point, the school of treason that produced many,
many, many more fighters against America than the CPUSA ever did, still rules. I'm not very hopeful.
I recall a story that Nixon boasted that after he was finished, they'd never make things like
they were again. That's the political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state. Today, when people will seriously argue
that Nixon was a liberal president, there is no ruling class appetite for democracy, old style
or bourgeois or what have you.
b9n10nt @68 links to Ta-Nehisi Coates. Coates knows perfectly well that if the black voters
had turned out in larger numbers, Clinton would have won the Electoral College as well. People
trying to normalize Trump are not alone, Every single black voter who didn't see any difference
between Clinton and Trump agrees. Clinton tried to make the campaign about a symbolic endorsement
of anti-racism and anti-sexism, as opposed to the deplorables. Millions of black voters proved
they were having none of it. They stayed home.
OP: "conservatives have breached norms, flouted decorum, assailed elites, and shattered orthodoxy
throughout the ages." But is that not also exactly what anti-conservatives – progressives, revolutionaries
– have done? Or is it the wrong sort of breaching, flouting, assailing, shattering when conservatives,
not your friends, do it; but SOP when your friends do it?
Or are you maintaining that respectable norm-adhering, decorum-maintaining, elite-sustaining,
deeply orthodox left-wingers have always been the vast majority of anti-conservatives?
On further thought: elite-sustaining, yes, maybe, if you regard the nomenklatura as elite.
Orthodox also, for their own kind of orthodoxy.
None of this is intended to imply support for the remarkable Trump.
I wonder if that qualifies as push-polling? Is asking the question propaganda? This is
a legitimacy crisis. It is not as if Clinton partisans did not call Trump's electoral legitimacy
into question. Half the country think Russian "meddling" determined the result, when it is not
clear any "meddling" happened.
nastywoman
Yes, Americans have lost their collective mind, politically. I know several elderly people
(not much more elderly than me, truth to tell) who consume anti-Trump screeds from Seth Meyers
or Rachel Maddow on a daily basis. It is entertainment I suppose, but it does not inform them
or improve their critical thinking skills. One, a transplanted Englishman, described Maddow to
me the other day as "erudite".
The relentless flood tide of propaganda in American politics makes it exceedingly hard
to talk with any American realistically about what is going on, because so much of what is going
is exists not as objective and verified facts, but as shared, tendentious narratives. The actual
Trump seems to me to be a bit of a personal mess and an authoritarian in the same mode as the
blowhards who hang out at the barbershop; the Trump constructed by, say, Maddow's televised narratives
is something else, something more imagined than real. The imagined Trump has to be bigger, to
be fitted with cheap hyperbole.
An essential element of the propaganda narrative is the "distance" to the other. The "base
of Trump supporters" is a prop. Wondering what "they" could be thinking but not waiting for an
answer before launching scorn and ridicule on the way to slander is a method.
No Layman, there is plenty of irrefutable evidence that Clinton is a militarist who strongly
believes in force and the threat of force, especially when it comes to the ME – and this plays
just fine with the Democratic party establishment, actually it's a necessity considering the donor
base. Clinton's stance towards Iran and the nuclear deal is a matter of record. Next time don't
nominate a warmonger who voted for the Iraq war if you want to prevent someone like Trump – and
hey, maybe young people will trust you again.
There is no "real" Trump narrative; narratives are imagined stories, constructed according
to principles of dramatic art to create meaning and morality. With effort, it is possible to anchor
a narrative to facts, and to do so by methods that limit violence to the objectivity of facts.
Whether a well-anchored narrative is persuasive may be important to such enterprises as the operation
of law or even the progress of science.
In politics, the absence of the restraints imposed by institutions of law or science (which
often fail their purposes even in those domains) invite the practice of dark arts of propaganda
and mass manipulation. Our famously free press (spoken sarcastically) is thought to provide
a check; fact-check columns proliferate at times, but mostly prove how weak an instrument of the
public interest, a Media run by massive corporations and financially dependent on corporate business
advertising is.
A common practice now is to lead with counterfactuals: narratives in which the place of
facts is taken by theory and theory's constructions. "Because the whole thing is basically a fantasy,
nothing will disprove it."
Last week's New Yorker has a profile of Rachel Maddow.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/rachel-maddow-trumps-tv-nemesis
Janet Malcolm is full of praise for Maddow. For what she identifies, correctly, as entertainment.
She does not comment on whether political comment as entertainment makes for a healthy politics.
I think not.
My political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state is that this is what conservative politics unchecked, unopposed
and not responsible to any mass constituency produces. Trump says anything. But, it has been twenty
years since anyone in politics has been held to account for anything said, except for "gotcha"
moments of mostly fake outrage. Not that we would have a gotcha moment for Bush's war crimes.
But that is my point. Holding Clinton up as a standard of normalcy in politics runs into exactly
this same problem: she talks in the political code words, takes no responsibility for policy consequences
and shows every sign of greed and irresponsibility, but the counterfactual of her normalcy is
still set forward, with no awareness that it is a groundless narrative. This is not a point about
Clinton or Trump, but it is a point about a political process that produces a lot of stupid and
Trump is a bonus.
I was not intending to distinguish actual from real, if that was a question. I was intending
to distinguish objectively factual statements or descriptive observation from arguments taking
the form of narratives, particularly projective or counterfactual narratives that seem distant
from or untethered in the main from verifiable fact.
I think it is possible to make value judgments closely related to factual observation, without
projecting a narrative into the future or into an alternate reality.
Whether my statements characterizing Trump constitute a narrative or rely on narrative to justify
value judgments is a fine point I do not see the point in arguing at this time. I would not defend
my observations and judgment as constituting the one "true story".
"Eli Pariser's The Filter Bubble became the most widely cited distillation of the effects Facebook
and other internet platforms could have on public discourse. Pariser began the book research when
he noticed conservative people, whom he'd befriended on the platform despite his left-leaning
politics, had disappeared from his News Feed. "I was still clicking my progressive friends' links
more than my conservative friends' -- and links to the latest Lady Gaga videos more than either,"
he wrote. 'So no conservative links for me.'
Through the book, he traces the many potential problems that the 'personalization' of media
might bring. Most germane to this discussion, he raised the point that if every one of the billion
News Feeds is different, how can anyone understand what other people are seeing and responding
to? 'The most serious political problem posed by filter bubbles is that they make it increasingly
difficult to have a public argument.' "
I think everyone here agrees we have problems to address. If the solutions I supported most
of my life were working in places such as California, I wouldn't feel the need for radical change.
Had the Democratic candidate not supported the Iraq war, alongside Biden, McCain et al, and then
'learned' her lesson by violent regime-change in Libya (described by Obama as a 'shit-show'),
and then embarked upon program of cash collection from the powerful and secrecy towards her coronation,
I might have wavered back towards the Dems. Bernie would have drawn me like a magnet. But given
the choice between the devil I know and the one I don't I choose the latter. Trump may yet screw
things up and people are free to disagree about his skills and solutions.
It's pretty easy today to forget that both Bill and Hillary attended Trump's (most recent)
wedding. Their daughter Chelsea is/was a good friend of Ivanka Trump (a convert to Judaism) and
her husband. The criticism of bedrock conservatives repeatedly loudly and publicly even today,
is that Trump is more of a Democrat than a conservative.
I stand by my belief that Trump built a public persona as a race-baiting, loudmouth buffoon
that carried him straight into the WH despite a fervent, well-funded bi-partisan effort to unseat
him from the time he declared up right to the present. Studying the buffoon tells us practically
nothing about the individual. He's ordinary, capable, ambitious, avaricious, and mired in the
world of the senses rather than the mind. There are worse traits and places to be.
Corey, it's a must read, especially for those in your field and for anyone interested in how
information is being manufactured, filtered, distributed, and internalized.
Hint: we don't know whattf others are reading and thinking, and won't be finding out anytime
soon.
I don't think Clinton would have cancelled the Iran agreement because it leaves the US exposed
as the one clearly breaking its word, annoying its allies. I think she would have found cleverer
ways to be bellicose. For instance, her supporter Michael Morell told Charlie Rose we should be
covertly killing Iranians and Russians in Syria so that they would know we did it. He didn't spell
it out, but by saying "covert" he meant we would deny it publicly. Clinton also wanted protected
zones for refugees, which in practice would mean massive air strikes and ground forces and in
a sanctuary for rebels to use as they strike at the Syrians and Russians and Iranians and Hezbollah.
Before someone objects to irrelevant Clinton bashing, there is a larger point. Trump is awful
and I favor removing him via the 25th Amendment because I think he might start a war with N Korea.
But a great many of Trump's opponents are opposed to him because he is an incompetent boob and
not because they oppose American warmongering. They favor it, but don't trust Trump to do it correctly.
@122 I'm going to respectfully leave that for you to figure out on your own. I'll close all further
communication with you by suggesting that your aggressive and uniformly uncharitable reading of
the remarks of others may complicate your understanding of relatively simple statements.
@123 I enjoy your comments very much, generally. And 123 is entirely fair.
I find very little in Trump's first term that is remarkable, or revolutionary. He seems to
understand that he can't go to war with a Republican party he's ostensibly supposed to lead. Corey
and others are correct, I believe, in asserting that Trump is fundamentally uninterested in governing,
and entirely wrapped up in frequent external validations. I'll add that he thrives on conflict
and perhaps instinctively knows how and when to rally his base. I've certainly seen him switch
gears/targets during rallies when he senses he's losing the crowd.
Unlike you, and probably many others, I don't take anything any politician says seriously,
especially Trump. Actions, rather than words, matter far more. Trump might like to get credit
for a decapitation strike on NK and I think you nailed it when you noted that such a strike would
win him bi-partisan support. He's more interested, imho, in getting credit for a golden economic
age however fanciful that notion may be.
Overall, I still defer to Scott Adams and look forward to his new book (any day)
"Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter." By all means buy Corey's Book, but
keep Adams in the back of your mind for light reading.
Trump may well blow us all up, but I've been told that could happen pretty much every day since
I can recall. What I can say, re: Kim, is that I was here in Japan when Bill Clinton started looking
seriously at removing Kim and all the Americans I knew here were crapping themselves. Can't see
it happening simply because nobody wants to see downtown Seoul and Tokyo vaporized, one of which
is a near-certainty, and that's if the conflict remains contained. The 1 percent in China, the
US, Korea, Russia, and Japan aren't about to let anybody risk a regional conflagration.
Michael Morell is a former CI A director and I saw speculation that he was a likely member of
a Clinton Administration. About the same time that he appeared on Charlie Rose he had also published
an op ed endorsing Clinton for President.
But you also ignored my other points. Clinton favored a safe zone in Syria, which is tantamount
to an invasion of Syria and armed conflict with their government and its allies. And Clinton herself
was and is representative of a large number of Very Serious People who thought Obama had botched
Syria by not intervening on a large enough scale. There is a big constituency for more vigorous
action against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. ( There is also a constituency for more intervention
in the Ukraine.). Clinton was clearly part of that. She also told AIPAC that we needed to take
our relationship with Israel to the next level, and the only comment I recall reading about her
regarding Yemen was about Iranian intervention, but to be honest I would need to look that up
to be sure.
Clinton pushed for the Libyan intervention.
Again, she is irrelevant now, but she was part of the group who wanted yet more American military
intervention in the Middle East. That group is still around. Your response was to avoid all my
points and to pretend Morrell is just some random supporter.
Last comment of the day. But I googled and found something I didn't know. Morell was one of her
advisors last fall and said we should be stopping and boarding Iranian ships to prevent them from
sending weapons to the Houthis.
J-D 'Can you explain how the construction of Trump in an (illustrative example) imagined narrative
differs from an objective description of Trump?'
Here is a quote from a Vox article dated Oct 13: ". . . obviously, there's Donald Trump, who
has dispensed with one democratic norm after another. He's fired an FBI director in order to undercut
an investigation into his campaign's possible collusion with Moscow . . ."
The article is not about Trump. Sean Illing, the author, is using Trump as an illustration.
Or, rather he is using a narrative about Trump where Trump colluded with the Russian state to
win election by foul means. If you accept the donnée of Trump's collusion with Russia, then it
follows that Trump fired Comey in what practically amounts to obstruction of justice. And, a considerable
volume of reporting has supported that narrative. One set of reports had Comey fired right after
he made a budget request to fund an expanded investigation. A dossier put together by a British
spy implied that Trump was being blackmailed by Russians. A meeting of arranged by one of Trump's
sons with a Russian lawyer was supposedly baited with an offer of dirt on Clinton and this meeting
has been interpreted as confirming the Trump campaign's willingness to collude. There has been
a lot of speculation in the Media in support of this narrative is my point. At the time Comey
was fired, there was a great volume of speculation centered on what Trump said in his letter dismissing
Comey, calling into question the claim by Trump that Comey had assured Trump on three occasions
that Trump himself was not under investigation. In support of the narrative that Trump had obstructed
justice, Comey's character and positive reputation were touted by some journalists.
But, despite the tremendous volume of journalistic speculation structured around this narrative
of collusion, there are no confirmed and unambiguous facts to support it. So, Illing must qualify
his use of the narrative as an example of bad behavior with the insertion of the weasel words,
"possible collusion".
In a better world than the one we are living in, responsible journalists are careful and judicious
in both verifying facts and grounding the narratives they use with facts. The facts that can be
ascertained and verified become constraints on the story, on the choice of narrative. That does
not necessarily happen. Sometimes, journalists go with a "good story" that resonates with readers
and attracts clicks or viewers. And, they construe such facts as there are in ways that support
the chosen narrative without exercising judgment or attempting verification. The story -- the
choice of narrative script -- becomes a constraint on the facts and their interpretation.
I think the balance of available factual evidence suggests pretty strongly that Trump did not
collude with the Russian state to defeat Clinton. An honest and balanced "objective" description
of factors affecting the electoral outcome and Trump's conduct do not support the idea that there
was collusion or even that the Russians did much of anything to affect the election beyond openly
funding a cable news channel. The dossier peddled by the British ex-spy was pretty ridiculous
on its face. The Comey budget request was a pure invention. Responsible journalists would have
attempted to verify details in the dossier or reported on how absurd many parts of it were. Journalists
assessing Comey's character might have taken a more critical perspective.
If the factual basis for "possible collusion" is taken away, the obstruction of justice charge
evaporates. Trump becomes a President who does not want to be dogged by a groundless investigation,
fishing for a blue dress until it finds one. Trump the President finds he does not want to have
the hack, Comey hanging out. Useful when he was tripping up his opponent, not so attractive as
a companion.
Trump viewed plainly is still a fairly alarming figure to have in a powerful office, but a
narrative of traitorous collusion with a national enemy, titillating as it may be as news entertainment,
is not descriptively accurate given the available evidence and appropriately balanced methods
of evaluating that evidence. (During the campaign, Trump called on Russia to disclose the emails
Clinton claimed to have deleted. I suppose one could take that as a joke or a call for collusion
with Boris and Natasha. I think joke is the better, more natural interpretation.)
You did it again, layman. I refuted what you said to me even if you take it in the narrowest possible
way. You objected to my reference to Morell's statement, implying that he was just some random
Clinton supporter using some silly argument about. " Donald Johnson supporter" who drowns kittens.
I showed that this argument was wrong and Morell was one of Clinton's advisors. If you want to
stick to issues, then stick to them and don't make silly arguments and get them wrong.
The larger point is that in Washington the fight between Trump and many ( obviously not all)
of his critics is a fight between two groups of militarists.. It would be good if people acknowledged
this. In a way it is three groups of militarists,, since Trump's personal incoherence makes him
a group unto himself. But on Iran there is an important disagreement between those who want to
dump the nuclear agreement and those who want to adhere to it, but are otherwise hardliners who
badly want more confrontation.
On your main point, when you aren't trivializing mine, yes, Trump is worse than Clinton because
he is not only an arrogant militarist (a trait he shares with Clinton and many others), but ignorant
and irrational.
Layman, small differences between Clinton and Trump do not dominate Clinton's very large political
defects. You had an argument for relentlessly focusing on differences to the exclusion of appreciating
the whole reality, maybe, when there was a choice on an upcoming ballot. Now, we live in the shadow
of Clinton's defects: her defects gave us Trump. And, those defects are not so much the qualities
of an individual person -- Clinton or Trump -- as they are the persistent institutional personalities
of large political factions and institutional actors: the Democratic Party establishment, the
Deep State intelligence agencies and military-industrial complex, the Foreign Policy Blob, the
corporate Media, et cetera.
Bullying others in comments over such fine points as whether Clinton would have respected
certain forms of the Iran nuclear deal is not contributing much to the discussion. We can see
that Trump is hostile to that agreement and is cynically manipulating the forms in ways likely
to make the agreement come apart. What relevance a counterfactual projection of Clinton's behavior
might have is not clear; asserting that acceptance of such a counterfactual as "true" should be
a dispositive criteria for rationality borders on the bizarre.
The relevant fact is not some putative small differences between Trump and Clinton (and the
factions and interests and institutionalized views she sought to represent as a fully paid-up
member of the Foreign Policy Blob), but the near-absence in American politics of a countervailing
force to the consensus of views and interests promoting a palsied, nearly mindless imperial aggression.
Morell's views are relevant to showing just how extreme and reckless is this "center" that Clinton
represented, and understanding how and why the "center" is not doing much to restrain the Trump.
Some powerful forces cultivated by the Democratic establishment have always been hostile to Iran,
supportive of Saudi Arabia and so on.
TM, the idea that CR is minimizing Trump seems bizarre to me. If anyone understands the incoherent
viciousness of conservatism as the impulse to dominate in a hierarchical polity, it is our gracious
host. Trump is expressing conservative ideas and impulses that have always been there. He is not
new. That bit of narrative hyperbole -- that Trump is different from all those nice responsible
conservatives of the past -- is a dangerous deception. What is different in our political moment
is the collapse of effective opposition from the left and centre-left. Trump is so scary because
so little stands in his way, so little compels him (or the various factions enjoying the power
associated with the authority of office under his aegis, including the practical military junta
at the core of his Administration) to moderate his policies, let alone his rhetoric.
what I always find grotesque about the accusations of Russian meddling is the full ticket
obliviousness to all the meddling the US used to perform in Russian elections, and in fact in
many other elections worldwide. It's quite a sorry sight to see people like you make a fuss about
very minor activities (if there's even evidence of any), without as much as a shred of self awareness.
Also, too: I've said I think she's bad on militarism. I'm not interested in, and don't,
defend the other side of that argument. I just don't have any patience for the sort of nonsense
that wants to paint her as an eater of babies. She's a bog-standard, mainstream adherent of
the global diplomatic, economic and military order. That's not good, but it ain't Satan either.
The global diplomatic, economic and military order is downright evil and full-scale babyeating.
Ask around in Yemen, Syria, Lybia, etc. So yes, she has that Satan streak. That that's bog-standard
and mainstream is horrific, but I grant you that's the world we live in.
Note, BTW, that she was directly involved in at least some of these actions. She has, even
now, more blood on her hands than Trump.
Layman, this is the third time your response is frustratingly beside the point and after this
I am giving up, because you are just going to continue doing it. I didn't just quote other people.
I said Clinton supported intervention in Syria, that she supported the Libyan intervention and
of course she voted for the Iraq War. She is also a standard AIPAC panderer. Do your own googling
if you actually care about this rather than try to save face in some internet thread. It's well
known Clinton is a hawk.
My point was that yes, she is a bog standard militarist and one of the points I was making
is that even if she is no longer relevant, the people who are militaristic in their attitudes
still are. You are the one between the two of us who wants to make it mainly about Clinton, but
since you brought up baby eating, that is you once again trivializing the consequences of bog
standard US militarism.
'Police departments will now have access to military surplus equipment typically used in warfare,
including grenade launchers, armored vehicles and bayonets, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced
on Monday, describing it as "lifesaving gear."'
All of the foregoing actions could have been predicted during the campaign.
It is quite true that the U.S. has interfered in the elections of other nations, with disastrous
consequences for many of those nations. Why this should tie hands now is not clear to me. Highly
unlikely the Russians were engaged in righteous retribution for Mossadegh. I suspect some would
be taking a less dismissive tone had, say, the Chinese interfered on behalf of Clinton the bloodthirsty.
Layman@159 :
Based on this and your prior comment, you're asking for counterfactuals, because of course
Clinton-the-non-President is not capable of being even as bad as let alone worse than Trump-the-President.
However, based on your comments elsewhere in the thread, you're dismissing any counterfactuals
out of hand. Taken together, this is not a tack taken by someone who is interested in a serious
dialogue, or really, any dialogue. Can we dispense with that sort of horseshit?
Either Clinton has no relevance at all, in which case you can forgo with the pedantic lectures
about how she's vastly superior in all ways to Trump (
@95 ) and we can hopefully resume forgetting that she exists, or the comparison of a hypothetical
Clinton presidency to the current administration has some value in the conversation even when
someone other than you is making it (
@96 ). Until and unless you're willing and able to unravel the fundamental contradiction between
these perfectly incompatible stances – which have infected every exchange you've made downthread
of the them – there's no point at all in trying to discuss this with you in any detail, and there's
certainly no reason for us to run and fetch answers for you in response to your ever-changing
standards.
I didn't go back to see who first mentioned Clinton, but the point made by at least a few of us
is that Clinton is only important at this point as a representative of a broad segment of the
Beltway crowd that is constantly pushing for more military intervention, either directly or by
proxy, and that some of the opposition to Trump doesn't come from antiwar types, but from people
who don't trust him to warmonger in a competent way.
If people want a sane non- militaristic foreign policy it's going to take more than just opposition
to Trump. You are also going to have to oppose some of Trump's opponents in both parties. The
one time Trump received positive feedback and praise from many in the Beltway was when he bombed
Syria.
If XYZ does not exist, it doesn't exist. If it does exist, it exists. I agree that in our present
state of political disorganization among the broad mass, most people do not know much about constitutes
a political issue. And, they don't know what they want politically.
nastywoman @ 175
"Such "thinking" is as "Alien" as blaming the kid who was mauled by a Pit Bull the other day
– "because so little stood in the Pit Bulls way and so little did "compel him".
"What type of person – what type of people can think like that?!"
The kind of person who thinks dogs should be kept on a leash. The type of person who can think
like that is highly intelligent, suave and debonair.
Why are people still talking about Clinton? In general, because Clinton won't shut up. She's as
hungry for a microphone and the spotlight as the conservative in question. Which is ironic considering
that her aversion to the press and the public as a candidate helped cost her the election. Now,
she can't stop talking. Bannon would willingly bankroll the book tour and undoubtedly wants her
to remain in the spotlight through 2018. Indeed, Bannon is banking on making Hillary a key part
of Trump's re-election in 2020, as role she looks all too eager to fill. Chew on that as you gaze
into the future.
Why are people talking about Hillary here, on a thread about Trump and conservatism? Because
a plausible argument can be made that Hillary is more of conservative than Trump, at least in
terms of neo-conservative politics. She has, after all, two neo-con wars under her belt already
and enjoys good relations with all the really wrong people. Her avarice and willingness to tell
tales are at least comparable to Trump's. But perhaps the best reason Hillary belongs here is
because many believe that had a less conservative Democrat than Hillary run (Bernie, for example),
Dems would have won and Donald Trump would be yesterday's news.
To get a sense of what the Democratic future looks like, here's a very recent interview with
Hillary which I think is illustrative of the level of disconnect between supporters (like me)
who felt strongly enough about her candidacy in 2008 to endure accusations of racism from Obama
supporters, yet turned from her to Trump by 2015, and those who still support her for reasons
that make a great deal of sense (to them).
The interview with Hillary about Hillary runs 45 minutes on Australian TV with a transcript.
Take away – Trump figures bigly and in the most unflattering terms, so much for graciousness in
defeat. The Access Hollywood tape is discussed in great detail, as is Comey, and the Russians.
The words Wall St; Goldman Sachs, Libya, and Syria are never mentioned. In Hillary-world Michigan,
Wisconsin, and Bernie Sanders merit a mention each and only in a very specific context. We get
David Duke, the Klu Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists; pizzas – and pure deflection
when the discussion turns to Bill, Chelsea, gifts; and cash. In short, she hasn't much of a good
word to say about anyone.
Here's a sampling for the still faithful.
" Russians actually paid in rubles for running ads in ah Facebook and on Twitter making all
kinds of accusations against me, working to suppress voters which is a really important part of
the equation " (suppress voters, or decrease turnout? The latter fits better, imho.)
Interviewer: "Is it, is it the case that you missed the fundamentally angry sentiment in the
US last year against globalisation?
HILLARY CLINTON: I didn't miss it "
Interviewer: "Was it in some ways your links to big money politics that made it difficult for
you to be the representative of that anger ?
HILLARY CLINTON: No, not at all! You know, when I was in the primary, Bernie Sanders couldn't
explain his programs. I was the one who was saying here's what we're going to do to the banks
"
One mere mention of Wisconsin: "we know is that the false information was aimed at Wisconsin
and Michigan and parts of Pennsylvania "
The danger is that intelligence agencies cause Facebook to influence elections.
Notable quotes:
"... Fowler told Rosen that it was "even possible that Facebook is completely responsible" for the youth voter increase. And because
a higher proportion of young people vote Democratic than the general population, the net effect of Facebook's GOTV effort would have
been to help the Dems. ..."
"... In June 2014, Harvard Law scholar Jonathan Zittrain wrote an essay in New Republic ..."
"... But the point isn't that a Republican beat a Democrat. The point is that the very roots of the electoral system -- the news
people see, the events they think happened, the information they digest -- had been destabilized. ..."
"... Chaos Monkeys ..."
"... The information systems that people use to process news have been rerouted through Facebook, and in the process, mostly broken
and hidden from view. It wasn't just liberal bias that kept the media from putting everything together. Much of the hundreds of millions
of dollars that was spent during the election cycle came in the form of "dark ads." ..."
"... Update: After publication, Adam Mosseri, head of News Feed, sent an email describing some of the work that Facebook is doing
in response to the problems during the election. They include new software and processes "to stop the spread of misinformation , click-bait
and other problematic content on Facebook." ..."
"... "The truth is we've learned things since the election, and we take our responsibility to protect the community of people who
use Facebook seriously. As a result, we've launched a company-wide effort to improve the integrity of information on our service," he
wrote. "It's already translated into new products, new protections, and the commitment of thousands of new people to enforce our policies
and standards... We know there is a lot more work to do, but I've never seen this company more engaged on a single challenge since I
joined almost 10 years ago." ..."
And why it was so hard to see it coming In the media world, as in so many other realms, there is a sharp discontinuity in the
timeline: before the 2016 election, and after.
Things we thought we understood -- narratives, data, software, news events -- have had to be reinterpreted in light of Donald
Trump's surprising win as well as the continuing questions about the role that misinformation and disinformation played in his election.
Tech journalists covering Facebook had a duty to cover what was happening before, during, and after the election. Reporters tried
to see past their often liberal political orientations and the unprecedented actions of Donald Trump to see how 2016 was playing
out on the internet. Every component of the chaotic digital campaign has been reported on, here at The Atlantic , and elsewhere:
Facebook's enormous distribution power for political information, rapacious partisanship reinforced by distinct media information
spheres, the increasing scourge of "viral" hoaxes and other kinds of misinformation that could propagate through those networks,
and the Russian information ops agency.
But no one delivered the synthesis that could have tied together all these disparate threads. It's not that this hypothetical
perfect story would have changed the outcome of the election. The real problem -- for all political stripes -- is understanding the
set of conditions that led to Trump's victory. The informational underpinnings of democracy have eroded, and no one has explained
precisely how.
* * *
We've known since at least 2012 that Facebook was a powerful, non-neutral force in electoral politics. In that year, a combined
University of California, San Diego and Facebook research team led by James Fowler published
a study in Nature , which argued that Facebook's "I Voted" button had driven a small but measurable increase in turnout,
primarily among young people.
Rebecca Rosen's 2012 story, "
Did Facebook Give Democrats the Upper Hand? " relied on new research from Fowler, et al., about the presidential election that
year. Again, the conclusion of their work was that Facebook's get-out-the-vote message could have driven a substantial chunk of the
increase in youth voter participation in the 2012 general election. Fowler told Rosen that it was "even possible that Facebook
is completely responsible" for the youth voter increase. And because a higher proportion of young people vote Democratic than the
general population, the net effect of Facebook's GOTV effort would have been to help the Dems.
The potential for Facebook to have an impact on an election was clear for at least half a decade.
The research showed that a small design change by Facebook could have electoral repercussions, especially with America's electoral-college
format in which a few hotly contested states have a disproportionate impact on the national outcome. And the pro-liberal effect it
implied became enshrined as an axiom of how campaign staffers, reporters, and academics viewed social media.
In June 2014, Harvard Law scholar Jonathan Zittrain wrote an essay in New Republic called, "
Facebook
Could Decide an Election Without Anyone Ever Finding Out ," in which he called attention to the possibility of Facebook selectively
depressing voter turnout. (He also suggested that Facebook be seen as an "information fiduciary," charged with certain special roles
and responsibilities because it controls so much personal data.)
In late 2014, The Daily Dot
called attention to an
obscure Facebook-produced case study on how strategists defeated a statewide measure in Florida by relentlessly focusing Facebook
ads on Broward and Dade counties, Democratic strongholds. Working with a tiny budget that would have allowed them to send a single
mailer to just 150,000 households, the digital-advertising firm Chong and Koster was able to obtain remarkable results. "Where the
Facebook ads appeared, we did almost 20 percentage points better than where they didn't," testified a leader of the firm. "Within
that area, the people who saw the ads were 17 percent more likely to vote our way than the people who didn't. Within that group,
the people who voted the way we wanted them to, when asked why, often cited the messages they learned from the Facebook ads."
In April 2016, Rob Meyer published "
How Facebook Could Tilt the 2016 Election " after a company meeting in which some employees apparently put the stopping-Trump
question to Mark Zuckerberg. Based on Fowler's research, Meyer reimagined Zittrain's hypothetical as a direct Facebook intervention
to depress turnout among non-college graduates, who leaned Trump as a whole.
Facebook, of course, said it would never do such a thing. "Voting is a core value of democracy and we believe that supporting
civic participation is an important contribution we can make to the community," a spokesperson said. "We as a company are neutral
-- we have not and will not use our products in a way that attempts to influence how people vote."
From the system's perspective, success is correctly predicting what you'll like, comment on, or share.
The same was true even of people inside Facebook. "If you'd come to me in 2012, when the last presidential election was raging
and we were cooking up ever more complicated ways to monetize Facebook data, and told me that Russian agents in the Kremlin's employ
would be buying Facebook ads to subvert American democracy, I'd have asked where your tin-foil hat was," wrote Antonio García Martínez,
who managed ad targeting for Facebook back then. "And yet, now we live in that otherworldly political reality."
Not to excuse us, but this was back on the Old Earth, too, when electoral politics was not the thing that every single
person talked about all the time. There were other important dynamics to Facebook's growing power that needed to be covered.
* * *
Facebook's draw is its ability to give you what you want. Like a page, get more of that page's posts; like a story, get more stories
like that; interact with a person, get more of their updates. The way Facebook determines the ranking of the News Feed is the probability
that you'll like, comment on, or share a story. Shares are worth more than comments, which are both worth more than likes, but in
all cases, the more likely you are to interact with a post, the higher up it will show in your News Feed. Two thousand kinds of data
(or "features" in the industry parlance) get smelted in Facebook's machine-learning system to make those predictions.
What's crucial to understand is that, from the system's perspective, success is correctly predicting what you'll like, comment
on, or share. That's what matters. People call this "engagement." There are other factors, as Slate' s Will Oremus noted in
this rare story about
the News Feed ranking team . But who knows how much weight they actually receive and for how long as the system evolves. For
example, one change that Facebook highlighted to Oremus in early 2016 -- taking into account how long people look at a story, even
if they don't click it -- was subsequently dismissed by
Lars Backstrom, the VP of engineering in charge of
News Feed ranking , as a "noisy" signal that's also "biased in a few ways" making it "hard to use" in a May 2017 technical talk.
Facebook's engineers do not want to introduce noise into the system. Because the News Feed, this machine for generating engagement,
is Facebook's most important technical system. Their success predicting what you'll like is why users spend
an average of more than 50 minutes a day on the site, and why even the former
creator
of the "like" button worries about how well the site captures attention. News Feed works really well.
If every News Feed is different, how can anyone understand what other people are seeing and responding to?
But as far as "
personalized newspapers " go, this one's editorial sensibilities are limited. Most people are far less likely to engage with
viewpoints that they find confusing, annoying, incorrect, or abhorrent. And this is true not just in politics, but the broader culture.
That this could be a problem was apparent to many. Eli Pariser's The Filter Bubble, which came out in the summer of 2011,
became the most widely cited distillation of the effects Facebook and other internet platforms could have on public discourse.
Pariser began the book research when he noticed conservative people, whom he'd befriended on the platform despite his left-leaning
politics, had disappeared from his News Feed. "I was still clicking my progressive friends' links more than my conservative friends'
-- and links to the latest Lady Gaga videos more than either," he wrote. "So no conservative links for me."
Through the book, he traces the many potential problems that the "personalization" of media might bring. Most germane to this
discussion, he raised the point that if every one of the billion News Feeds is different, how can anyone understand what other people
are seeing and responding to?
"The most serious political problem posed by filter bubbles is that they make it increasingly difficult to have a public argument.
As the number of different segments and messages increases, it becomes harder and harder for the campaigns to track who's saying
what to whom," Pariser wrote. "How does a [political] campaign know what its opponent is saying if ads are only targeted to white
Jewish men between 28 and 34 who have expressed a fondness for U2 on Facebook and who donated to Barack Obama's campaign?"
This did, indeed, become an enormous problem. When I was editor in chief of Fusion , we set about trying to track the "digital
campaign" with several dedicated people. What we quickly realized was that there was both too much data -- the noisiness of all the
different posts by the various candidates and their associates -- as well as too little. Targeting made tracking the actual messaging
that the campaigns were paying for impossible to track. On Facebook, the campaigns could show ads only to the people they
targeted. We couldn't actually see the messages that were actually reaching people in battleground areas. From the outside, it was
a technical impossibility to know what ads were running on Facebook,
one that the company
had fought to keep intact .
Across the landscape, it began to dawn on people: Damn, Facebook owns us .
Pariser suggests in his book, "one simple solution to this problem would simply be to require campaigns to immediately disclose
all of their online advertising materials and to whom each ad is targeted." Which
could happen in future campaigns .
Imagine if this had happened in 2016. If there were data sets of all the ads that the campaigns and others had run, we'd know
a lot more about what actually happened last year. The Filter Bubble is obviously prescient work, but there was one thing
that Pariser and most other people did not foresee. And that's that Facebook became completely dominant as a media distributor.
* * *
About two years after Pariser published his book, Facebook took over the news-media ecosystem. They've never publicly admitted
it, but in late 2013, they began to serve ads inviting users to "like" media pages. This caused a massive increase in the amount
of traffic that Facebook sent to media c
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(Legs for educational purposes only)
New
York Times
Senate to examine
financial records of firm behind notorious Trump-Russia dossier
